The Exclusionary Rule: A Fourth Amendment Protection

The exclusionary rule is a judicially created remedy that prevents the government from using evidence gathered in violation of the United States Constitution. The Fourth Amendment, which protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures, is the constitutional amendment most associated with the exclusionary rule. However, the exclusionary rule has also been applied to the Fifth Amendment, which protects against self-incrimination, and the Sixth Amendment, which guarantees the right to counsel. The exclusionary rule is an important tool for deterring police misconduct and protecting the constitutional rights of individuals.

Explore related products

More Essential than Ever: The Fourth Amendment in the Twenty First Century (Inalienable Rights)

$17 $31.49

Reconstructing the Fourth Amendment: A History of Search and Seizure, 1789-1868

$39 $39

Constitutional Law: [Connected eBook with Study Center] (Aspen Casebook)

$236.63 $359

An Introduction to Constitutional Law: 100+ Supreme Court Cases Everyone Should Know

$26 $34.95

Constitutional Law: Principles and Polices (Aspen Treatise)

$97.32 $126.95

Constitutional Law: a QuickStudy Laminated Reference Guide

$8.32 $8.95

The exclusionary rule and the Fourth Amendment

The exclusionary rule is a court-created remedy and deterrent, not an independent constitutional right. The rule prevents the government from using most evidence gathered in violation of the United States Constitution. The Fourth Amendment declares a right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, but it does not specify how this right translates into concrete terms.

The exclusionary rule was adopted by the courts as a rule of evidence to deal with the failure of the warrant system to address after-the-fact Fourth Amendment violations. The Fourth Amendment provides for a warrant system intended to prevent unreasonable searches and seizures, but there is no specific constitutional provision for the exclusion of evidence illegally acquired. The exclusionary rule is triggered when evidence is obtained through an unreasonable search or seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

The decision in Mapp v. Ohio established that the exclusionary rule applies to evidence gained from an unreasonable search or seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The Court held that the exclusion doctrine, as an essential part of the right to privacy, must be insisted upon as an essential ingredient of the right to be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures. The Court further held that illegally seized evidence must be excluded from both federal and state courts, and that the standards by which the question of legality is determined should be the same for both types of courts.

The exclusionary rule is often a defendant's only remedy when police officers conduct an unreasonable search or violate their Miranda rights. Even if officers violate a defendant's constitutional or statutory rights, qualified immunity protects the officers from a lawsuit unless no reasonable officer would believe that their conduct was legal. In addition, the exclusionary rule does not prevent the government from introducing illegally gathered evidence to impeach, or attack the credibility of, defendants' testimony at trial. The Supreme Court recognized this exception in Harris v. New York as a truth-testing device to prevent perjury.

Opponents of the exclusionary rule argue that it is not an effective deterrent for police misconduct and that civil remedies are available for citizens abused by police practices. However, supporters of the exclusionary rule argue that it stands as the justice system's priority commitment to depriving the government of the fruits of illegal action.

The exclusionary rule and the Fifth Amendment

The exclusionary rule is a court-created remedy and deterrent, not an independent constitutional right. It is designed to prevent the government from using most evidence gathered in violation of the United States Constitution. The exclusionary rule applies to evidence gained from an unreasonable search or seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment declares a right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, but it does not specify how this right translates into concrete terms.

The exclusionary rule also applies to improperly elicited self-incriminatory statements gathered in violation of the Fifth Amendment. The Fifth Amendment prohibits people in criminal cases from being compelled to be a witness against themselves. In the 1886 case of Boyd v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed the compulsory production of business papers, and the Court excluded those papers based on a combination of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. In 1914, the U.S. Supreme Court announced a strong version of the exclusionary rule, in the case of Weeks v. United States, under the Fourth Amendment prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures.

The exclusionary rule is often a defendant's only remedy when police officers conduct an unreasonable search or violate their Miranda rights. Even if officers violate a defendant's constitutional or statutory rights, qualified immunity protects the officers from a lawsuit unless no reasonable officer would believe that the officers' conduct was legal. In addition, the exclusionary rule does not prevent the government from introducing illegally gathered evidence to "impeach," or attack the credibility of, defendants' testimony at trial. The Supreme Court recognized this exception in Harris v. New York as a truth-testing device to prevent perjury.

The exclusionary rule also protects against violations of the Sixth Amendment, which guarantees the right to counsel. Most states also have their own exclusionary remedies for illegally obtained evidence under their state constitutions or statutes, some of which predate federal constitutional guarantees against unlawful searches and seizures and compelled self-incrimination.

The exclusionary rule in state courts

The exclusionary rule is a court-created remedy and deterrent, not an independent constitutional right. It applies to all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States, regardless of citizenship or immigration status. The rule prevents the use of evidence discovered in violation of the Fourth Amendment, which protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures. The Fourth Amendment does not restrict the actions of state officers, so originally, there was no question about the application of an exclusionary rule in state courts.

In 1914, the U.S. Supreme Court announced a strong version of the exclusionary rule in the case of Weeks v. United States. This decision, however, only applied to the federal level, and the "Weeks rule" made an exception for cases at the state level. In 1961, the U.S. Supreme Court made the exclusionary rule applicable to the states with its decision in Mapp v. Ohio. The court in Mapp v. Ohio also confirmed that the exclusionary rule applies to state law through the Fourteenth Amendment. The court held that the exclusion doctrine, an essential part of the right to privacy, must be insisted upon as an essential ingredient of the right to be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures.

The exclusionary rule is often a defendant's only remedy when police officers conduct an unreasonable search or violate their Miranda rights. Even if officers violate a defendant's constitutional or statutory rights, qualified immunity protects the officers from a lawsuit unless no reasonable officer would consider their conduct legal. In addition, the exclusionary rule does not apply when police conduct a search in reliance on binding appellate precedent allowing the search, as ruled by the U.S. Supreme Court in Davis v. U.S.

Courts have also carved out several other exceptions to the exclusionary rule, such as the good-faith exception, where excluding the evidence would not deter police officers from violating the law in the future. Under this exception, evidence is not excluded if it is obtained by officers who reasonably rely on a search warrant that turns out to be invalid. Another exception is the independent source doctrine, where evidence obtained during an unlawful search or seizure may later be admissible if it is later obtained through a constitutionally valid search or seizure.

Explore related products

Constitutional Law (University Casebook Series)

$305

Constitutional Law [Connected eBook with Study Center] (Aspen Casebook)

$100 $345

Examples & Explanations for Constitutional Law: Individual Rights

$76.95

A Short & Happy Guide to Constitutional Law

$28

Constitutional Law For Dummies

$18 $29.99

Constitutional Law (University Casebook Series)

$296.95

The exclusionary rule and qualified immunity

The exclusionary rule is a court-created remedy and deterrent, not an independent constitutional right. It prevents the government from using most evidence gathered in violation of the United States Constitution. The exclusionary rule is based on the Fourth Amendment, which protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures. It also applies to evidence gained in violation of the Fifth Amendment, which protects against self-incrimination, and the Sixth Amendment, which guarantees the right to counsel.

The exclusionary rule is triggered by the Fourth Amendment, which is part of the Bill of Rights. The Fourth Amendment guarantees the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. This right is often referred to as the right to privacy. The exclusionary rule acts as a deterrent to law enforcement officers, preventing them from conducting searches or seizures in violation of the Fourth Amendment. It also provides remedies to defendants whose rights have been infringed.

Qualified immunity is a legal doctrine that protects government officials, including law enforcement officers, from being held personally liable for constitutional or statutory violations. In the context of the exclusionary rule, qualified immunity protects officers from being sued for conducting unreasonable searches or violating Miranda rights, unless no reasonable officer would believe that their conduct was legal. This means that even if officers violate a defendant's rights, they cannot be sued as long as they had a reasonable belief that their actions were lawful.

The Supreme Court has ruled on several occasions regarding the application of the exclusionary rule and qualified immunity. In Davis v. U.S., the Court held that the exclusionary rule does not apply when police conduct a search based on binding appellate precedent, even if the precedent is later invalidated. In Herring v. U.S., the Court found that the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies when police employees make mistakes in maintaining records in a warrant database. In Vega v. Tekoh (2022), the Court clarified that violating Miranda rights does not provide a basis for a civil rights claim and that Miranda imposes prophylactic rules focused on disallowing the use of improperly obtained statements.

While the exclusionary rule is an important tool for deterring unlawful searches and seizures, it has its limitations. It does not apply in civil cases, including deportation hearings, and there are several exceptions where the costs of exclusion are deemed to outweigh its benefits. For example, the good-faith exception allows evidence obtained through an invalid warrant if the officers reasonably relied on it. Additionally, illegally seized evidence may still be admissible if it is later obtained through a constitutionally valid search or seizure.

The exclusionary rule and the Supreme Court

The exclusionary rule is not explicitly mentioned in the Fourth Amendment, but the Supreme Court has applied it frequently. The rule prevents the government from using evidence obtained in violation of the United States Constitution, specifically the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments. The Fourth Amendment guarantees the right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures, while the Fifth Amendment protects against self-incrimination, and the Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to counsel.

The exclusionary rule was established in Weeks v. United States in 1914, where the Court held that evidence obtained from a warrantless search of Weeks' home should have been excluded by the trial court. This was further extended in Mapp v. Ohio, where it was decided that the rule applied to both federal and state courts, and evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment could not be used. The Court recognised that the exclusionary rule was an essential part of the right to privacy and was necessary to give effect to the right to be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures.

The Supreme Court has also clarified that the exclusionary rule does not apply in certain situations. For example, in Davis v. U.S., the Court ruled that the rule does not apply when police conduct a search based on binding appellate precedent allowing it. Similarly, in Herring v. U.S., the Court found that a good-faith exception applies when police employees make errors in maintaining records. Additionally, the Court has held that the rule does not apply in civil cases, including deportation hearings, as seen in INS v. Lopez-Mendoza.

The exclusionary rule has been criticised for its limitations and exceptions, which some argue have become more important than the original rule itself. The rule has been limited by the Supreme Court in recent years, and alternatives have been suggested, such as criminally prosecuting officers for illegal searches or allowing lawsuits against the government. However, these alternatives have rarely been used, and the exclusionary rule remains an important tool for deterring police misconduct and protecting constitutional rights.

Frequently asked questions