The court stated Exclusionary Rule that protects crime suspects from being incriminated by use of illegally acquired evidence should not be abolished. This rule is an essential weapon for innocent defendants who are vulnerable to the excessive force of police intrusion in the case of alleged crime. The power that has been bestowed on the law enforcing units, especially the police, in conducting searches or seizure is enormous (Yale, 2003), and only this principle can provide a standing for the defendants to protect themselves. Police brutality against US citizens has been witnessed on a daily basis, and people have been subjects to the violation of their fourth amendment rights times without number. Therefore, the exclusionary rule should be upheld to enforce the Fourth Amendment.
The exclusionary rule should be maintained because the police defile the authority of a search warrant and forcibly enter the suspect’s house, and conduct arbitrary searches seeking evidence (Lynch, 2000). Provided they have the search warrant, the police can enter the suspect’s premises at any time even in the night and conduct random searches that may disorganize the entire home even the places where the scope of the warrant does not cover. Usually, the police carry out as intensive search as he/she chooses to. Some of the evidence obtained are not related to the crime but will be twisted to fit the context thus incriminating an innocent person Yale, 2003). Furthermore, the Fourth Amendment does not specify the extremities in police searches and, therefore, this clause provides an opportunity for the suspect to benefit from the fourth amendment rights (Lynch, 2000).
The exclusionary rule should be upheld to curb the deaths that result from unreasonable searches. Citizens have lost their lives in the course of police confrontation in suspected crimes. For instance; in 1992, police raided and shot at Donald Scott at his Malibu ranch California where they suspected that the ranch was a drug hub. A different incident involved Rev. Accelynne Williams, who died of severe heart attack after an uninformed police intrusion into his home in search for drugs only to realize that they had invaded the wrong home. Such incidences of police altercation be scrapped with in case the exclusionary rule is abolished, and the justice system will be held responsible for the tragic occurrences (Lynch, 2000).
The exclusionary rule should be upheld because the evidence that ought to be terminated is determined by the court to be illegally obtained hence lawfully invalid. The exclusionary rule supports the purpose for the specification of a search warrant, probable cause and the suspects consent before police intrusion. However, the police use profanity before young children, and point their weapons at harmless occupants like in the 1995 case of unarmed and compliant Scott Bryant who was killed before his eight-year-old son, when the police entered a trailer home to execute a search warrant for marijuana (Lynch, 2000). The law enforcing officer’s damage family property, hold the family hostage for unreasonable periods of time, and leave the family standing helplessly as they watch them executing their duties. The exclusionary rule is needed to curb the incidences where the defendants lack standing to defend the violation of their rights (Yale, 2003).
The exclusionary rule is a significant constitutional privilege that enables suspects to benefit from the right to be liberated from unreasonable searches and seizures. The rule is an indispensable tool that facilitates the right to privacy and ability to contest its violation in the court of law. It also separates innocence from self-incrimination and forced evidence that is unconstitutional. The rule also regulates police authority during searches because of the fear of prosecution in the case of vindication of such an abuse. The exclusionary is indubitably significant to the citizens and should not be abolished.
Yale, K. (2003). “In Defense of the Search and Seizure Exclusionary Rule (1st ed., pp. 119-140).
Hare J.L. & Pub.
Lynch, T. (2000). In Defense of the Exclusionary Rule. Harvard Journal Of Law & Public
Policy, 23(3), 711.