Analysis of Exclusionary Rule and Fourth Amendment in Criminal Justice

This case study delves into the exclusionary rule and its exceptions, specifically focusing on the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. The analysis examines the 'good faith' exception established in United States v. Leon (1984), allowing evidence obtained by law enforcement to be admissible if they acted in good faith, even if a warrant later proves to have issues. The study also explores the public safety exception to the Fifth Amendment, as seen in New York v. Quarles (1984), where police can question suspects without Miranda warnings in urgent situations. The assignment references the Draper v. United States (1959) case and argues in favor of the public safety exception, emphasizing the importance of flexibility in the application of legal rules to ensure public safety. It also highlights the significance of these exceptions in balancing law enforcement's need to gather evidence with the protection of individual rights. The document provides an in-depth analysis of the legal concepts and their practical implications within the criminal justice system.

Subject: Criminal Justice
Exclusion rule for Fourth Amendment
(United States V. Leon, 1984) : This case involves a matter wherein the Supreme Court of
United States has created a good faith exception to the exclusionary rule. As an exception to
the exclusionary rule, acting in good faith is provided to law enforcement officials in reliance
upon the search warrants while obtaining the evidence. The Fourth Amendment prohibits
both unreasonable searches and seizures, therefore introducing the requirement of a probable
cause. ( Draper v. United States, 1959) As one of the fundamental rights, this exception of
good faith allows evidence obtained by law enforcement or police officers to rely on the
search warrant they believe to be valid and admissible during the trial.
Exceptions to Fifth Amendment
In the case of (New York v. Quarles,, 1984), Public safety exception, as an exception to the
Fifth Amendment can be administered by the police officers. In cases concerning public
safety, the police officers need not follow the strict stipulations of not asking suspects
questions immediately after their arrest. This exception departs from the principle by
expressly inviting police officers to coerce defendants into making incriminating statements
and then permitting the prosecutors to take up these statements during trial procedure.
1

(Drizin, 1984) I am in total concurrence with this exception rule as the rules have to be made
flexible especially when the matters concern public safety. At the same time such rules
ensure the applicability of these rules to incidences where the police concern is only that of
public safety.
2

REFERENCES
Draper v. United States, 358 (US Supreme Court 10th Circuit September 12, 1959).
Arizona V. Evans, 115 S. Ct. 1185 (United States Supreme Court 1995).
Drizin, S. A. (1984). Fifth Amendment--Will the Public Safety Exception Swallow the
Miranda Exclusionary Rule. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology .
New York v. Quarles,, 104 (Court of Appeals, Sixth Ct. 2626 June 12, 1984).
United States V. Leon, 468 (Supreme Court of United States July 5, 1984).
3