Replies

More good info to learn from.

http://lawschool.lexis.com/emanuel/crimproc/crimpro07.htm

THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE

I. THE RULE GENERALLY

A. Statement of rule: The "exclusionary rule" provides that evidence obtained by violating D’s constitutional rights may not be introduced by the prosecution at D’s criminal trial, at least for purposes of providing direct proof of D’s guilt.

Example: A car driven by D is randomly stopped by Officer, who has no reasonable grounds for suspecting D of any wrongdoing. Officer requires D to leave the car, and then searches the car. In the car’s trunk, Officer finds heroin. At D’s trial for possession of heroin, the prosecution will not be permitted to introduce the heroin itself (or the fact that the heroin was found in D’s car) against D. The reason is that the discovery and seizure of the heroin was a direct result of the illegal stop and search, and any evidence directly derived from violation of D’s constitutional rights is prevented by the exclusionary rule from being introduced against D as part of the prosecution’s case in chief.

B. Judge-made rule: The exclusionary rule is a judge-made, not statutory, rule. Over the years, the rule has been shaped by a long series of Supreme Court decisions. The rule is binding on both state and federal courts.

1. Not constitutionally required: The Supreme Court has held that the exclusionary rule is not required by the Constitution. [U.S. v. Leon] Instead, the rule has been created by the Supreme Court as a means of deterring the police from violating the Fourth, Fifth and other Amendments.

C. Dwindling application: In general, the scope of the exclusionary rule has been steadily cut back during the Burger and Rehnquist years.