Throughout history, we have witnessed various forms of injustice aimed at citizens who are unaware of their rights and at government officials who exploit the system. As a result, a law is now in effect that prevents the government from using most evidence collected in violation of the United States Constitution. The exclusionary rule is a law that prohibits the use of illegally obtained evidence during a criminal trial to deter police misconduct. The exclusionary rule allows courts to exclude the presentation of incriminating evidence at trial if it is proven that the evidence was obtained in violation of a constitutional provision. There are three major cases where this all started, including Weeks v. United States, Wolf v. Colorado and Mapp v. Ohio. Each of these cases before the Supreme Court has been instrumental in how the criminal justice system operates today. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an Original Essay In order to fully understand the relevance of these Supreme Court cases, it is essential that we have a good understanding of the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights, added to the Constitution in 1791 to protect the American people from unlawful searches and seizures, meaning that government officials cannot search your person or home without first having a warrant or probable cause as a basis. , thus ensuring an additional level of safety among the public. The ultimate goal of this provision is to protect people's rights to privacy and freedom from unreasonable government intrusions (Smentkowski, 2019). However, the fourth amendment does not guarantee protection against all searches and seizures, only those carried out by the government and deemed unreasonable under the law. To invoke violation of the Fourth Amendment as grounds for suppression of relevant evidence, the court had long needed the plaintiff to prove that he had been the victim of an invasion of privacy in order to qualify for protection under of the Fourth Amendment. However, the Supreme Court departed from this request, the question of exclusion must be decided alone after a resolution of the substantive question of whether the plaintiff's fourth amendment rights are desecrated or not, which successively requires that the plaintiff demonstrates an excusable expectation of privacy, i.e. willy-nilly, desecrated by the government. In general, most warrantless searches of personal premises are prohibited under the Fourth Amendment, unless specifically exempted. For example, a warrantless search is also lawful if a political candidate has requested and received consent to conduct a search; whether the search is incidental to a lawful arrest; whether there is evidence to be searched and whether there is an emergency situation for the warrantless search. Exceptional circumstances exist wherever a scenario occurs when individuals are in imminent danger, when evidence faces imminent destruction, or before a suspect's imminent flight. Besides the Fourth Amendment, there are other factors that are equally important in understanding the exclusionary rule as it stands. full capacity. Although laws are put in place to protect the American people, there are still regulations that laws must follow. In this case, there are seven exceptions to the exclusionary rule. The rule ofunavoidable discovery: which includes, but is not limited to, evidence that would have been discovered by legal means. The independent source doctrine: where evidence is found through an illegal search, but later discovered independently of events through a search. Knock and Announce: This rule applies when an officer is exercising his or her search warrant and generally does not forcibly enter the residence, but rather knocks and identifies himself, expecting a response within a reasonable time.Principle mitigation: evidence may be used if the relationship between the evidence and the illegal method by which it was obtained is remote and attenuated. Good Faith Exception: This includes officers who reasonably believed, in “good faith,” that they were acting in accordance with the legal system, such as using a warrant that later turned out to be unreliable. Isolated police negligence: This does not always trigger the exclusionary rule, but is applied when police misconduct and deliberate actions have been committed. When making an identification in court: a witness can make an identification in court despite previous wrongdoing. Weeks v. US was an early case that essentially laid the groundwork for the exclusionary rule. The case includes a man named Fremont Weeks, who was known for transporting lottery tickets through the mail, which was a direct violation of the penal code (Reed 2019). Law enforcement proceeded to arrest Weeks and search his office, leading to his conviction based on the evidence found. After Weeks' conviction, he appealed, arguing that the law violated the Bill of Rights. He believed he had the right to be protected from illegal acts that go against his birthrights in America, such as searches and seizures (Duignan, 2019). The U.S. Supreme Court justices all agreed that the search was a violation of the Fourth Amendment. This is where we see the “fruit of the poisonous tree”. The metaphor appears in reference to tainted evidence. Furthermore, in the case of Wolf v. Colorado's attorney in this case was convicted in state court of collusion with black market abortion. Petitioner appealed and argued that his Fourth Change constitutional right to be free from devious searches and seizures had been desecrated and that any evidence used against him desecrated the Fourth Change. The United States Supreme Court has ordered that the class action will not be denied once evidence obtained through a black market search and seizure is admitted by a state court for a state offense. According to Weeks and Wolf, varieties of the evidence rule existed in many states for several decades. In 1961, however, the rule was expanded nationwide and gained popularity among criminal defendants as a possible defense. In 1957, plaintiff Dollree Mapp had her home searched apparently without a warrant for a bombing suspect. All of this happened after the defendants (Cleveland Police) forced their way into the home. Although officers did not find the suspect, they did find some books and photos that fell under the pornographic category and were illegal in Ohio (Duignan, 2019). Mapp was convicted of violating the law based on this evidence. Having heard this case on appeal, the Ohio Supreme Court identified the illegality of the search, but entered judgment on the grounds that states were not required to follow the exclusionary rule. On June 19, 1961, the Supreme Court took the initiative to overturn the decision of the Ohio court andconclude that the Fourth Amendment protects against “police intrusion into privacy” (Duignam 2019). The U.S. Supreme Court ultimately voted six to three in favor of Dollree Mapp. I am in a relationship with a drug trafficker and we live together. Neighbors called us about the smell of marijuana coming from across our yard and strange cars pulling up to our house. The following week, two police officers knocked on the door asking for a José Duarte (my boyfriend). They say they have a warrant to enter the home and search for illegal substances. When asked to see the warrant, the police gave up the paper but never let us see it. As they wander through the house looking through every nook and cranny, they stumble upon our bedroom and into the closet where they find a jar with 4 ounces of marijuana inside. Officers arrest my boyfriend and charge him with possession. His mother and I are looking for the best lawyer money can buy to get Jose out as quickly as possible. Through word of mouth from a few family friends, we finally found a worthy attorney, Michael Aaronson. After explaining what happened from my perspective, he continually interrupted me to ask me questions that I now know were a key part of his process. Our lawyer finished hearing everything I had explained to him and then told me what he could do for José. Attorney Aaronson began to explain that the officers had overstepped their bounds and informed me that we had a case against the State. Once José Duarte's court date arrived, we were ready to get justice. The judge let one of the two police officers speak before José's lawyer presented his client. The police officer explained that he had received several calls and informants who expressed their concerns to him. These informants explained a smell of marijuana and strange vehicles in contact with Duarte. Aaronson asked the agent if they had any other reason for wanting to search the house other than the informants and they replied "No", and when asked if they had a warrant to search the entire property, they responded that it was specified at the garage.Aaronson then stated that the two officers violated the Fourth Amendment because they did not produce the warrant when requested and searched the entire house rather than what was specified on the warrant . The exclusionary rule comes into play here because they searched the entire house and officers found marijuana, but in a way that goes directly against the constitution and the rights of American citizens. Now, without the drugs they found, they have no cases. All they have left without the marijuana are a few complaints from neighbors with no probable cause or proof. Marijuana thrown out of the case, all that's left is one man arrested by police. Through the eyes that I have experienced, I would say that the exclusionary rule is a safety net for all the shameful acts that occur behind closed doors within the criminal justice system. In the event that those selected to serve and protect do the exact opposite, the government has created a clause allowing the public to defend themselves. I think this rule is as hypocritical as it gets. On the one hand, the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791 and yet, over one hundred and twenty years later, we still see the failure of the system and the need for additional legislation to clarify it. Even though Weeks was well known for carrying lottery tickets, the system does not act unfairly; In the end, there is always a process.