Expanding Exclusionary Rule Exceptions and Contracting Fourth Amendment Protection

By Jackson, Heather A. | Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Summer 1996 | Go to article overview

Expanding Exclusionary Rule Exceptions and Contracting Fourth Amendment Protection


Jackson, Heather A., Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology


I. INTRODUCTION

In Arizona v. Evans,(1) the United States Supreme Court held that the exclusionary rule does not apply where an unlawful search is the result of a clerical error by a court employee.(2) The Court reasoned that the exclusionary rule did not fulfill its requisite deterrent purposes in a case where a police officer acted in good faith in response to a non-existent misdemeanor warrant appearing on the police computer.(3) Thus, the Court ruled that evidence seized in violation of Isaac Evans' Fourth Amendment rights could be admitted and used against Evans in a criminal proceeding.(4) According to the Court, the exclusionary rule is a judicially created remedy designed to deter future Fourth Amendment violations by police officers.(5) Because the rule is not a specific remedy to cure Fourth Amendment violations, it is only applicable when the deterrent purposes are most efficaciously served.(6)

This Note argues that the illegally seized evidence should have been excluded even though the violation was caused by a court employee.(7) First, this Note asserts that the Court distorted the precedent of United States v. Leon,(8) the common law foundation for the good faith exception, by ignoring the centrality of the warrant process in that case. Second, this Note asserts that, contrary to the majority's indication, the role of the exclusionary rule is much greater than mere deterrence.(9) Finally, this Note argues that even if the main goal of the exclusionary rule is deterrence, that goal would be better served by applying the rule to all state law enforcement personnel, not only to arresting officers. Therefore, the Court incorrectly held that the introduction of evidence against a criminal defendant, seized without a warrant or probable cause due to clerical error, was constitutionally permissible.

II. BACKGROUND

1. Basic Principles of the Fourth Amendment and the Exclusionary Rule

The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution protects the right of the people to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.(10) While the language of the Fourth Amendment forbids unreasonable searches and seizures, it does not provide a mechanism for prevention or a remedy, should they occur.(11) The exclusionary rule provides a means for enforcing the Fourth Amendment by "command[ing] that where evidence has been obtained in violation of the search and seizure protections guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, the illegally obtained evidence can not be used at the trial of a defendant."(12)

The Supreme Court first announced the exclusionary rule in 1886, in Boyd v. United States.(13) Boyd involved a quasi-criminal forfeiture proceeding.(14) In Boyd, the Court concluded that compelling a defendant to produce private papers was equivalent to an unlawful search and seizure and therefore unconstitutional.(15) Justice Bradley authored the opinion which linked the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.(16) Compelling the production of private papers essentially required the defendant to provide self-incriminating testimony, a clear Fifth Amendment violation.(17) Thus, the Court noted that because police often engage in unreasonable searches or seizures in order to compel the defendant to give self-incriminating testimony, the admission of this evidence in court violates the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. (18)

In 1914, in Weeks v. United States,(19) the Supreme Court first applied the exclusionary rule to criminal proceedings in federal courts. In Weeks, the Court held that a trial court could not use private documents, such as letters, which were seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment, as evidence in criminal proceedings.(20) The Court reasoned that it could not admit illegally obtained evidence without effectively condoning unconstitutional behavior, thereby compromising the integrity of the judiciary.(21) The Court did not mention deterrence as a goal supporting the exclusionary rule, but rather noted privacy interests,(22) the limitation of governmental power,(23) and the import of judicial integrity.

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

Expanding Exclusionary Rule Exceptions and Contracting Fourth Amendment Protection
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.