Supreme court decisions and discussions on the exclusionary rule Research Paper

Supreme court decisions and discussions on the exclusionary rule - Research Paper typeThe exclusionary rule was initiated from the Weeks v. United States 232 U.S. 383, 34 S. Ct. 341, 58 L. Ed. 652 (1914) grammatical case where a Federal agent had carried out a search without warrant in order to have proof of gambling in Freemont Weeks residence. The evidence proved Weeks guilty but since the search was illegal or warrantless, conviction of the acc holdd was repealed. Weeks was found guilty of double-dealing mail related activities and his house was thoroughly searched and documents seized by the Federal and local officials. Before this case the validity of evidence was judged by its truthfulness. There were two major reasons given for this law. First, it involved the deterrence rationale which specified that the rule was necessary to deter law enforcement personnel from violating the Fourth Amendment or to police the police (Hensely and Snook, 2006, p.160). The jiffy reason con cerned due process argument or the fairness rationale. This included that the federal government cannot attain convictions with the help of lawless actions. Thus each evidence collected unconstitutionally would not hold for a case even if the accused is found guilty on the basis of that evidence. The rule was make through this case and was subject to controversies since then. The controversies found existence in Warren, Burger and Rehnquist courts. In fact Lee Epstein and Thomas Walk observe the exclusionary rule provides yet other example of Warren motor hotels revolutionary treatment of the rights of the criminally accused (Hensely and Snook, 2006, p.160). In fact in the Wolf v Colorado case the Vinson Court declined to apply this law because most of the states had not adopted the rule and there were other options to ensure sustenance of the Fourth Amendment. In the Warren Court the case of Mapp v Ohio (1961) enforced the exclusionary rule (Hensely and Snook, 2006, p.161). On the other hand individuals cannot receive Fourth Amendment protection unless they are not able to demonstrate the reasons behind their expectation of privacy regarding the place where searches and seized are happened. According to the Supreme Court of US individuals can have a rational expectation of privacy watch to their own bodies, homes, business offices and others personal properties. Individuals can also enjoy a reliable expectation of privacy in terms of their automobiles. Generally people do not possess reasonable expectation of things like vehicle location and paint, garbage left at roadside for collection, public place, bank records and the things left exposed at public place (LII, 2010). Miranda admonitions come into question with respect to the Fifth Amendment where the suspect when retained for any interrogation should be given a warning before questioning. This warning refers to the right of a criminal suspect to remain silent during interrogation and the warning m ust be given to him with respect to the use of any statement against the person which may be termed as self-incrimination during the trial. this rule can protect the suspect against any psychological ploys