Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The Supreme Court announced its decision on July 5, 1984, with Justice Byron White filing for the 6–3 majority in favor of the United States, with Justice Harry Blackmun writing a concurring opinion. First, the exclusionary rule is designed to deter police misconduct rather than to punish magistrates and judges for their errors.
United States, the U.S. Supreme Court prohibited the admissibility of evidence obtained through unreasonable searches or seizures in federal criminal prosecutions, thereby establishing the exclusionary rule. In 1961, the Court, then led by Chief Justice Earl Warren, ruled in Mapp v.
Gates, before the Supreme Court brought the exclusionary rule for reconsideration. The Supreme Court also considered allowing exceptions for errors made by police in good faith . [ 49 ] The Reagan administration also asked Congress to ease the rule. [ 50 ]
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.
Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (1984), was a U.S. Supreme Court case that created an "inevitable discovery" exception to the exclusionary rule.The exclusionary rule makes most evidence gathered through violations of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which protects against unreasonable search and seizure, inadmissible in criminal trials as "fruit of the poisonous tree".
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 ...
Ohio (1961), the Supreme Court created the exclusionary rule, which generally operates to suppress – i.e. prevent the introduction at trial of – evidence obtained in violation of Constitutional rights. "Suppression of evidence, however, has always been [the court's] last resort, not [its] first impulse.
The Court of Appeals then held that evidence from the search had to be suppressed under the exclusionary rule. (While federal courts and some state courts recognized a good-faith exception to the rule for officers acting in good faith, the North Carolina Supreme Court had previously explicitly declined to recognize it.) [1]: 4–5