Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Exclusionary Rule and Execution of Searches

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Exclusionary Rule and Execution of Searches

    I'm a CJ student doing a research paper on the exclusionary rule and how or if it makes a difference in the way a police officer excutes a search. If any one would like to comment I would love to hear his/her opinion on the exclusionary rule.

  • #2
    I believe it does make a difference. However, I believe there is something of more relevance to the decision process of whether to seize/search outside the confines of what is legal: 42 USC 1983. It would be bad to loose one's evidence. It would be much worse to incur a civil liability; job loss; or a stint in prison.

    Comment


    • #3
      Do your own homework jr...
      sigpic
      Don't make me gassy.
      You wouldn't LIKE me when I'm gassy...
      _________________________________

      If you're offended by something that I've said...it was just your turn.

      Comment


      • #4
        I am doing my own homework. This is a research paper and part of my research is to find out what police officers think about the impact the exclusionary rule has on the way a search is conducted.

        Thanks for you imput!

        Comment


        • #5
          Thank you for you help. It has been hard to find doucmentation on the net about police opinion.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by ComicGuy View Post
            Do your own homework jr...
            You'll have to excuse certain forum members and their posts as they are immature at times.

            Also ComicGuy is corrections officer(former) and his work didn't usually involve things like the exclusionary rule.

            The exclusionary rule can be a double edged sword. It keeps police officers and prosecutes honest in that they won't violate the law or the constitution when collecting evidence. But it can also throw out perfectly good evidence that proves someone is mass murder but if it was obtained without a warrant, for instance, it would be thrown out of court and probably setting a dangerous person free on what is sometimes a technicality and not necessarily misconduct.

            A scenario could go like this: A man has warrant out for his arrest. Two police officers come to his home and are invited in by the man himself. They arrest him in his living room and proceed to take him to jail. Before leaving the second officer re-enters the home to secure the residence and make sure the back doors are locked. The man states that the doors are already locked and the officer does not need to go back into the house. The officer does anyway and when he enters the kitchen to lock the back door, which was not viewable from the area of arrest in anyway, he discovers a pill mill for MDNA.

            The rules that apply to an arrest only allow a search in the immediate "lunging area" of the suspect or their wingspan. Anything further would require a search warrant, especially in a home. Since the officer returning to secure the home had no further probable cause or consent to do a search beyond the area of arrest the pill mill and narcotics seized would be unusable. Also even if the door was unsecured, the home owner stating that he wanted it left alone further restricts any reason for the officer to return. Its his house if he want to leave the doors unlocked that's his business.

            Personally I think the exclusionary rule has it place and it is needed to prevent police misconduct. The rules can be complicated but an educated LEO can work his/her way through them and obtain the evidence/confessions they need legally to secure convictions.
            Last edited by wirefire2; 09-13-2008, 05:10 PM.

            Comment


            • #7
              [QUOTE=wirefire2;1408691]You'll have to excuse certain forum members and their posts as they are immature at times.

              Also ComicGuy is corrections officer(former) and his work didn't usually involve things like the exclusionary rule.

              The exclusionary rule can be a double edged sword. It keeps police officers and prosecutes honest in that they won't violate the law or the constitution when collecting evidence.


              This is very helpful. My I quote your opinion in my paper? I would like to get as many views as I can.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by wirefire2 View Post
                You'll have to excuse certain forum members and their posts as they are immature at times.

                Also ComicGuy is corrections officer(former) and his work didn't usually involve things like the exclusionary rule.

                The exclusionary rule can be a double edged sword. It keeps police officers and prosecutes honest in that they won't violate the law or the constitution when collecting evidence. But it can also throw out perfectly good evidence that proves someone is mass murder but if it was obtained without a warrant, for instance, it would be thrown out of court and probably setting a dangerous person free on what is sometimes a technicality and not necessarily misconduct.

                A scenario could go like this: A man has warrant out for his arrest. Two police officers come to his home and are invited in by the man himself. They arrest him in his living room and proceed to take him to jail. Before leaving the second officer re-enters the home to secure the residence and make sure the back doors are locked. The man states that the doors are already locked and the officer does not need to go back into the house. The officer does anyway and when he enters the kitchen to lock the back door, which was not viewable from the area of arrest in anyway, he discovers a pill mill for MDNA.

                The rules that apply to an arrest only allow a search in the immediate "lunging area" of the suspect or their wingspan. Anything further would require a search warrant, especially in a home. Since the officer returning to secure the home had no further probable cause or consent to do a search beyond the area of arrest the pill mill and narcotics seized would be unusable. Also even if the door was unsecured, the home owner stating that he wanted it left alone further restricts any reason for the officer to return. Its his house if he want to leave the doors unlocked that's his business.

                Personally I think the exclusionary rule has it place and it is needed to prevent police misconduct. The rules can be complicated but an educated LEO can work his/her way through them and obtain the evidence/confessions they need legally to secure convictions.
                Somebody has been watching old Adam-12 episodes, but still good info.
                Today's Quote:

                "The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits."
                Albert Einstein

                Comment

                MR300x250 Tablet

                Collapse

                What's Going On

                Collapse

                There are currently 3164 users online. 152 members and 3012 guests.

                Most users ever online was 26,947 at 07:36 PM on 12-29-2019.

                Welcome Ad

                Collapse
                Working...
                X