Criminal Procedure: Exclusionary Rule and Fourth Amendment Rights

This essay delves into the exclusionary rule within the framework of criminal procedure, focusing on its application in suppressing illegally obtained evidence. The rule, preventing the use of evidence obtained in violation of a defendant's constitutional rights, is examined through landmark cases like Weeks v. United States and Mapp v. Ohio. The essay analyzes a scenario where a defendant, initially stopped for speeding, had drugs discovered during a search following an incorrect warrant system reading. It argues that the evidence should be suppressed due to the violation of the defendant's Fourth Amendment rights, as the police acted without a valid warrant or legal justification, highlighting the importance of upholding constitutional rights and preventing police misconduct. Desklib provides access to more solved assignments and study resources for students.

Running head: CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Criminal Procedure
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
The exclusionary rules states that any evidence which has been obtained by a
government, violating the constitutional rights of the defendant cannot be used against him. This
is a judge made rule wherein the constitutional rights of the defendant are preserved by the
Government. In cases when any evidence has been procured illegally and without any warrant,
the defendant can file for a motion to suppress the evidence. The Fourth Amendment
jurisprudence was upheld by the Court in the case of Weeks v United States, where it was held
that any evidence which is seized without any justification and reasonableness shall be held to be
a violation of the constitutional rights of the person. This is called the exclusionary rule which
applies to Federal Government.. This rule is in place to keep in check police misconduct and also
give courts the power to exclude any evidence which has been procured by way of contravention
of the constitutional rights of the defendant (McGlyn, 2017). Therefore, if any evidence is
produced by the police which has been procured illegally, the defendant can bring a motion to
suppress that evidence.The exclusionary rule can be understood better by understanding the fruit
of the poisonous tree doctrine which states that the court can exclude from trial that has been
seized illegally or by not following the proper code of conduct in searching for the evidence
(Hanlon, 2015). The exclusionary rule applies in cases of seizure of physical evidence, like
drugs, in the present case. If physical evidence is seized illegally in violation of the defendant’s
Fourth Amendment, the Court shall have the power to declare the search inadmissible and also
give a power to the defendant to file for a suppression of evidence.
In the present case, the criminal defendant was stopped by police because he was
speeding and the person also had a history of outstanding misdemeanor. While the police was
proceeding with the process of arrest, a marijuana joint fell from his pocket accidentally and this
led the police to search the car where he found some additional drugs. The police found that his

2CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
system was showing incorrect information about the warrant as it had been dismissed. The
defendant filed for a motion to suppress the evidence and the exclusionary rule can be applied in
this case to allow the defendant to file a motion to suppress the drug evidence. The police in this
case did not have the search warrant to look for drugs in the car and he applied unnecessary and
unreasonable force to seize the physical property. Applying the principles of Weeks v United
States and Mapp v Ohio, The court had held that the police cannot act in excess of their power
and violate a defendant’s constitutional rights by conducting a search which is arbitrary in
nature. therefore, the criminal defendant shall be allowed to file a motion for suppressing the
evidence because the police has violated his Fourth Amendment Rights by seizing the drugs
from his car without any search warrant or legal orders.

3CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Bibliography
Hanlon, C. (2015). Limited Faith in the Good Faith Exception: The Third Circuit Requires a
Warrant for GPS Searches and Narrows the Scope of the Davis Exception to the
Exclusionary Rule in United States v. Katzin. BCL Rev., 56, 33.
Mapp v Ohio 367 U.S. 643 (1961)
McGlynn, M. (2017). Competing Exclusionary Rules in Multistate Investigations: Resolving
Conflicts of State Search-and-Seizure Law. Yale Law Journal, 127(2).
Week v United States 232 U.S. 383 (1914)