Yes, we need the Exclusionary Rule. The suggestion here that a fairer deterrent to police misconduct in gathering evidence illegally would be to hit them with damages rather than exclude the evidence illegally obtained is absurd. Police departments would simply pay off the damages after the fact in exchange for being able to "win" cases by collecting evidence in any unconstitutional or devious way (breaking and entering, bribing, threatening, taking, planting evidence, searching and seizing without warrants). This is an absurd correction for police misconduct. Power must be restrained or it runs wild. That's WHY we have the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments and it's WHY the Exclusionary Rule was underlined by the Warren Court.
We need to keep the exclusionary rules in place as it adds protections for the innocent. In getting warrants the judge is in theory suppose to protect the innocence by weighing evidence. Without the rule it encroaches on civil liberties as it would be easier for a cop to justify searches if there is little and no disincentive to the search. I have little faith in civil remedies as it is difficult to get the government to admit fault so small slights go to the wayside.
The Exclusionary Rule benefits the innocent and the guilty equally. Innocent people would be persecuted if not for this Rule. Law enforcement agencies would falsify evidence and/or dig up dirt on an innocent person to prosecute them.
How does the exclusionary rule provide freedom for the guilty and nothing for the innocent?? Without it how would you find anyone innocent? If everything is included then everyone would be guilty.
During a traffic stop, an officer is denied a search of the detained vehicle/car. The officer deploys a dog to search ( the air around the outside) of that car. The canine officer, signals/ alerts the officer indicating the presence of a scent (the dog is trained to find) . This process seems to doom any further search, to exclusion. I seems that the right to deny a warrant less search, applies to the use of a canine unit. Ripe?
It's asked at the end, "Given those changes in modern American law enforcement Do we really need an Exclusionary Rule as a way of enforcing, Fourth Amendment rights?" Seeing how several departments aren't requiring their law enforcers to wear body cams tells me that we still need something like an Exclusionary Rule. We can't even get on the same page that cops, in "modern American law enforcement," should be wearing cameras. These cameras protect both the officers and the suspects alike.
I imagine one reason why illegally obtained evidence is not useable is because it may have been altered. Aren't there strict rules that must be adhered to for the storage of evidence along with a detailed custody chain maintained at all times?
We absolutely need it. You can't break the (supreme) law, to catch people breaking the law. You must follow to proper steps and procedures. If not, any evidence ill gotten is useless. This rule is fine as is, and I commend the Supreme Court on its creation. We can't have law enforcement reducing themselves to violating the Constitution wantonly.
If i lie to a police officer during the traffic stop can this law still defend me in court. For example the police officer asks “do you have anything illegal.” And i reply “no.” And the unlawfully search my car against my consent and find something illegal. Will the exclusionary rule still be something I can use in court?
Great info! But, it's mere logic that only the guilty benefit---or perhaps, benefit more completely---from the Exclusionary Rule, since the innocent do not have any incriminating evidence that would be subject to illegal seizure.
Let's just tell it like it really is, gentlemen. The police don't need to violate your fourth Amendment rights, the companies which we all interface with minute by minute collect every last drop of your waking moments digitally. The corporations can do what they want to whomever they want using law enforcement as their attack dogs for those they choose. While everyone must remain transparent open books for corporations under the false premise of "fair use" or "contractual agreement" via their TOS, they can remain secretive in their own legal abuses because they own the backbones and infrastructures which would allow law enforcement access to their inner workings. It's a rigged game folks.
@@Sierrz Of course you can sue, but how do you sue a corp. for illicit transactions when they aren't obligated to tell you what transpired and do everything they possibly can to keep things hidden from public scrutiny?
Then based on this, if the police violates the FOURTH AMENDMENT including THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE. Then the police has stripped themselves of QUALIFIED IMMUNITY.
The guilty going free argument going free when innocent people are framed every day here is evident in the news. Whoever argues against the exclusionary rule starts from a baseless place.
![King v. Burwell: Limits on the Scope of the Major Questions Doctrine [No. 86]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/tlYVxup75gg/mqdefault.jpg)
![King v. Burwell: Limits on the Scope of the Major Questions Doctrine [No. 86]](/img/tr.png)
![Five Exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule [No. 86]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Q3GVRMlqZNw/mqdefault.jpg)
Yes, we need the Exclusionary Rule. The suggestion here that a fairer deterrent to police misconduct in gathering evidence illegally would be to hit them with damages rather than exclude the evidence illegally obtained is absurd. Police departments would simply pay off the damages after the fact in exchange for being able to "win" cases by collecting evidence in any unconstitutional or devious way (breaking and entering, bribing, threatening, taking, planting evidence, searching and seizing without warrants). This is an absurd correction for police misconduct. Power must be restrained or it runs wild. That's WHY we have the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments and it's WHY the Exclusionary Rule was underlined by the Warren Court.
We need to keep the exclusionary rules in place as it adds protections for the innocent. In getting warrants the judge is in theory suppose to protect the innocence by weighing evidence. Without the rule it encroaches on civil liberties as it would be easier for a cop to justify searches if there is little and no disincentive to the search. I have little faith in civil remedies as it is difficult to get the government to admit fault so small slights go to the wayside.
The Exclusionary Rule benefits the innocent and the guilty equally. Innocent people would be persecuted if not for this Rule. Law enforcement agencies would falsify evidence and/or dig up dirt on an innocent person to prosecute them.
Thank you kind sir. You would be an amazing teacher.
He's a law professor in Utah
How does the exclusionary rule provide freedom for the guilty and nothing for the innocent?? Without it how would you find anyone innocent? If everything is included then everyone would be guilty.
During a traffic stop, an officer is denied a search of the detained vehicle/car. The officer deploys a dog to search ( the air around the outside) of that car. The canine officer, signals/ alerts the officer indicating the presence of a scent (the dog is trained to find) . This process seems to doom any further search, to exclusion. I seems that the right to deny a warrant less search, applies to the use of a canine unit. Ripe?
It's asked at the end, "Given those changes in modern American law enforcement Do we really need an Exclusionary Rule as a way of enforcing, Fourth Amendment rights?" Seeing how several departments aren't requiring their law enforcers to wear body cams tells me that we still need something like an Exclusionary Rule. We can't even get on the same page that cops, in "modern American law enforcement," should be wearing cameras. These cameras protect both the officers and the suspects alike.
Except the police turn their bodycam on and off at times to not incriminate themselves for violating people.
I imagine one reason why illegally obtained evidence is not useable is because it may have been altered. Aren't there strict rules that must be adhered to for the storage of evidence along with a detailed custody chain maintained at all times?
We absolutely need it. You can't break the (supreme) law, to catch people breaking the law. You must follow to proper steps and procedures. If not, any evidence ill gotten is useless. This rule is fine as is, and I commend the Supreme Court on its creation. We can't have law enforcement reducing themselves to violating the Constitution wantonly.
Great job explaining
If i lie to a police officer during the traffic stop can this law still defend me in court. For example the police officer asks “do you have anything illegal.” And i reply “no.” And the unlawfully search my car against my consent and find something illegal. Will the exclusionary rule still be something I can use in court?
Great info! But, it's mere logic that only the guilty benefit---or perhaps, benefit more completely---from the Exclusionary Rule, since the innocent do not have any incriminating evidence that would be subject to illegal seizure.
Thank you.
Let's just tell it like it really is, gentlemen. The police don't need to violate your fourth Amendment rights, the companies which we all interface with minute by minute collect every last drop of your waking moments digitally. The corporations can do what they want to whomever they want using law enforcement as their attack dogs for those they choose. While everyone must remain transparent open books for corporations under the false premise of "fair use" or "contractual agreement" via their TOS, they can remain secretive in their own legal abuses because they own the backbones and infrastructures which would allow law enforcement access to their inner workings. It's a rigged game folks.
No, they can still be sued as well
@@Sierrz Of course you can sue, but how do you sue a corp. for illicit transactions when they aren't obligated to tell you what transpired and do everything they possibly can to keep things hidden from public scrutiny?
Yes we need it to prevent a police state.
Then based on this, if the police violates the FOURTH AMENDMENT including THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE. Then the police has stripped themselves of QUALIFIED IMMUNITY.
The guilty going free argument going free when innocent people are framed every day here is evident in the news. Whoever argues against the exclusionary rule starts from a baseless place.
Crimes
Hdhfhf