Exclusionary Rule Essay

The Fourth amendment guards against un reason outable pursuites and seizures, on with requiring any warrant to be judici eithery sanctioned and supported by likely cause. The interpretation and execution of the Fourth amendment in the courtroom however, is decided by the dictatorial judicatory in an attempt to take a chance a fair balance betwixt individual and community interests. The exclusionary feel for example, is a peremptory Court precedent that holds patrol departments responsible for seizing incriminating study according to constitutional specifications of ascribable process, or the information will non be allowed as evidence in a criminal trial. The question that arises in turn, is whether the exclusionary overshadow has handcuffed the abilities to effectively protect the community by the natural law, or if it has actually resulted in a positive police reform which of necessity to be expanded upon.My opinion is that although the exclusionary rule may signifi cantly slow bring down the police departments investigation and arrest process, it is a necessary barbarous in order to protect the rights of the individuals who in fact should not begin their firesides essayed. I do however, agree that without the restrictions of the exclusionary rule police departments would be able to do their hypothecate a lot faster and to a greater extent effectively, without having to worry about first acquiring a search warrant or after transmitting slam immerse evidence, having to see a good example throw out because it was not obtained through due process. My personal concern for allowing the police much(prenominal) a high level of caution though, is that in the heat of the investigation and hope to catch or lock forth a suspect, police may search the lieus of people related, associated, or even hazard of having connections to the suspect in order to get information that could result in a guilty verdict, which would potentially violate the privacy of people who potentially are not connected to the execration or suspect being investigated.If I was personally nominate by the President of The United States to dress in the Supreme Court for example, I would take a close saying at the case of Mapp v. Ohio. In Mapp v Ohio the Cleveland Police Department forcibly precedeed the home of Dollree Mapp without a warrant in search of a wanted fugitive. The Cleveland Police failed to discern a fugitive, but instead gear up a trunk full of grungy material which under Ohio law was illegal. When thecase went to court Mapp was initially convicted, through a series of appeals that eventually made it to the U.S. Supreme Court however, the conviction was overturned. As an official Supreme Court Justice, I would have absolutely done the same affair in overturning the purpose on Mapps case. The reason for my vote or decision, would be that the police did not only forcibly enter the defendants home without a warrant, but they be about having a warrant, and arrested her for a crime completely unrelated to what they were looking for if they had a warrant.Even if the Police department had a warrant to search Mapps home for a fugitive, my first question would be what size the trunk was. If the trunk was a small one in turn, I would question why the Police open it if the fugitive could not possibly be hiding inside the trunk. I study that the actions of the Cleveland Police Department were abusive, deceptive, and overall iconoclastic for the reputation of their police department, their complete brush aside for due process if overlooked, could have possibly encouraged other police departments virtually the country to take similar approaches to investigations without consequence. I am confident in the decision made by the U.S. Supreme Court and would not change it at all if I were appointed as a Supreme Court Justice myself.