Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The exclusionary rule does not apply in a civil case, in a grand jury proceeding, or in a parole revocation hearing.. The law in force at the time of the police action, not the time of the attempt to introduce the evidence, controls whether the action is illegal for exclusionary rule purposes.
Murray v. United States, 487 U.S. 533 (1988), was a United States Supreme Court decision that created the modern "independent source doctrine" exception to the exclusionary rule. The exclusionary rule makes most evidence gathered through violations of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution inadmissible in criminal trials as ...
In adopting the inevitable discovery doctrine in Nix, the Supreme Court discussed the basic reasoning underlying the doctrine.The rationale behind the inevitable discovery exception is the flip side to that underlying the exclusionary rule—the exclusionary rule's purpose is to deter police from violating constitutional and statutory rights.
The rationale behind the Supreme Court decision revolves around the notion that, as the opinion argues, "the exclusionary rule has its limitations." According to the court, the meaning of the rule is to protect persons from unreasonable searches and seizures aimed at gathering evidence, not searches and seizures for other purposes (like ...
United States (1914), [2] has been enforced by the exclusionary rule, which excludes most evidence gathered through Fourth Amendment violations from criminal trials. While Wolf v. Colorado (1949) [3] had held the amendment to apply to the states, a process known as incorporation, the exclusionary rule had explicitly not been incorporated by the ...
The exclusionary rule was part and parcel of the Fourth Amendment’s limitation upon governmental encroachment of individual privacy. The Court’s only support for its decision is that even though the costs of exclusion are not very substantial, the potential deterrent effect in these circumstances is so marginal that exclusion cannot be ...
If a state prisoner's claim as to a violation of the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule has already been given a full and fair hearing by state courts, it may not be heard by federal courts in a habeas corpus petition. Court membership; Chief Justice Warren E. Burger Associate Justices William J. Brennan Jr. · Potter Stewart
Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961), was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision in which the Court ruled that the exclusionary rule, which prevents a prosecutor from using evidence that was obtained by violating the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, applies to states as well as the federal government.