Exclusionary Rule

The exclusionary rule has been under attack since 1886 when it was first taken up by the Supreme Court in the case Boyd v. the United States. The Boyd case was about a forced disclosure of an invoice to prove that duty had not been paid on certain imports. The Court ruled that this was “compulsory production of papers” that violated the Fourth Amendment and the evidence could not be allowed in court. The exclusionary rule was later applied to the states in 1961 with the case Mapp v. Ohio. In this case, Cleveland police officers illegally entered and searched Mapp’s home and subsequently seized evidence. The Court ruled that the exclusionary rule was also applicable to state cases and the evidence was not able to be used by the police in proving their case.

The exclusionary rule, in the opinions of most, only seems to help those that choose a life of crime. The opinion Benjamin Cardozo made about the case People v. Defore, is an excellent example of an argument against the rule when he said, “The criminal is to go free just because the constable blundered”. However, those that support the rule have characterized it as a “judicially created” deterrent against police violations of the Fourth Amendment. In the case Elkins v. the United States, the court clearly said that the rule was “…to prevent, not to repair…”

The exclusionary rule is, in my opinion, a good rule to have. Yes, it probably does help criminals extremely more than it was intended to do but not every rule or law that is on the books does what it was initially designed to do; meaning, we don’t live in Utopia so not everything is going to be perfect. I believe this rule was made to try to keep those in a place of authority honest. Let’s face it, not all police officers are “good”. There are more “crooked cops” than we actually know. When the police break rules this, more often than not, leads to breaking Constitutional rules like those in the Fourth Amendment. Even though someone breaks the law, he still has rights up until he is proven guilty and sentenced to jail. To ensure that he does not appeal the decision of the courts and possibly be set free, police agencies across the nation not only need to have stricter guidelines for their officers to follow but they need to enforce some kind of disciplinary action when one of their officers do not comply with the guidelines. Studies that have been done on officers have shown that the ones that have a college degree in criminal justice are less likely to break the rules than those that do not have a college degree. Only 2% of the nation’s police agencies require and demand those that seek employment as an officer have a criminal justice degree. It seems to me that every agency in the nation needs to follow suit. The costs that are incurred by the continued use of the exclusionary rule are outrageous. The law enforcement profession needs to start “policing” itself to minimize these costs. The principles of federalism that this country was founded on will always remain intact. At the same time, the laws that the police must follow will forever remain fractured as long as they are reinvented over and over again. By participating in a credentialing program that is known all over the world and requiring higher education for would-be applicants, not only would this nation have better officers in their departments but it will also help in the departments as far as “policing” their selves. The result: Fewer criminals would be set free because of the exclusionary rule.