Exclusionary Rule

The purpose of the exclusionary rule was to protect individuals' rights to privacy and to deterrence police from conducting illegal searches. The exclusionary rule applied only to the federal law enforcement because the Bill of Rights was not incorporated; therefore, in 1941 the exclusionary rule became part of the constitutional law; however, it cannot be found in the constitution (Zalman, 2008). The first application of the exclusionary rule to the states was in the case Mapp v. Ohio, the Supreme Court developed the remedial exclusionary rule to ensure evidence seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment was admissible in court as evidence to prove the defendant's guilt (Zalman, 2008). Throughout the years the exclusionary rule has went through changes into what society has today, in this paper the writer will identify the exceptions to the exclusionary rule, examine the cost and benefits of the exclusionary rule.

The exclusionary rule has three elements, the first element is an illegal action by a police officer or individual acting as peace officer, the second element is evidence or person secured without probable cause or a search warrant, and the last is there must be a fundamental association between the illegal conduct and the evidence secured. The three elements have to exist in order for the exclusionary rule to function and have evidence admissible in the court of law. In some cases, a lawyer can provide exceptions in obtaining evidence some of the exceptions are Independent Source Doctrine, Inevitable Discovery Doctrine, and Attenuation and these exceptions allow evidence into the court proceeding to prove a defendant's guilt.

The exceptions to the exclusionary rule are the Independent Source Doctrine, Inevitable Discovery Doctrine, and Attenuation, independent Source Doctrine occurs when an officer obtain evidence then return with a warrant and collect the evidence again. The next exception to the rule is the Inevitable Discovery Doctrine an example to this rule occurs when evidence is seized illegal, but hypothetical searching the area where the evidence was would have be discovered. Attenuation occurs when a proper confession is made after an illegal arrest (Zalman, 2008). Another exception to the rule is Good Faith; in Good Faith, the courts approve a warrant to obtain evidence; however, an error occurs (Find Law, 2012). The Good Faith exception has limitations for example of a defense lawyer can prove an officer misled the courts or prove reckless disregard to the truth would go against the Good Faith exception. Other exceptions to the exclusionary rule are consent, plain view, and open field, when an individual gives consent to search his or her property the officers do not need a warrant. In addition, if contraband is in plain view causing probable cause the officer has the right to search for example a vehicle without a warrant. The other exception is the open field because open field cannot be