Con law 1 Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Con law 1 - Essay ExampleThe information alike stated that some illegal betting equipment might also be present in that home. Mapp refused to allow them permission to enter and search the home as the legal philosophy officers did not have a search imprimatur as call ford in law. The officers forcibly entered the home and searched it, without producing a search warrant to Mapp. As it turned out the officers did not find any of the things that they had light to search for, but instead they found some pornographic materials in the house. As a result, they arrested Mapp and charged her for being in possession of pornographic material, and subsequent sentenced. At the trial, the prosecution did not produce a search warrant as evidence (Mapp v. Ohio. 1961). The Supreme Court upheld that evidence acquired illegally is inadmissible in State courts since the law could not be properly upheld if illegally obtained evidence was to be admitted in court. This exception seemed as the most effe ctive means of upholding professionalism of the guard officers in execution of their duties. Even though there was concern on the basis that this rule whitethorn result in criminals going scot-free, it was obvious that upholding constabulary professionalism, in some great extent, outweighed this concern. This case served as one of the significant cases that played a great role in re-evaluating the role of the fourth amendment in the judiciary (Mapp v. Ohio. 1961). Exclusionary Rule The general rule of the Exclusionary Rule is that any evidence gathered in violation of the fourth amendment is inadmissible in court. This rule states that if police officers contravene a persons constitutional rights, in their pursuit of evidence, they cannot use that evidence against the person. The exclusionary rule serves as a very important repair against improper searches by the police officers. It can be of great use in the general protection of the citizens rights. This rule is a creation of t he court so us to uphold the Constitutional amendments that were made. Courts are keen in applying the rule in order to exclude illegally obtained evidence where the costs of exclusion are greater than its deterrent or remedial benefits (Tomkovicz, 2009). The Supreme Court sets up the provisions of the Bill of Rights against the state on many occasions. The question that arises is whether the court depart continue supporting the same principles imposed on the federal states against the State. Most of the court decisions are in support of this idea of using the same standards for two types of states (Tomkovicz, 2009). However, there are several exceptions to the general rule. These exceptions include non-trial criminal proceedings for example, bail proceedings, and a proceeding in revoking parole as an exception. It holds that constitutionally, there may be admission of evidence obtained illegally in such non-trial criminal proceedings. Another exception is the arraignment of the defendant. This exception enables the prosecutor to produce evidence illegally obtained from the defendant if only the purpose is to impeach the defendant. However, such evidence may be in-admissible for the purpose of impeaching other witnesses of the defense, as it was held in James v Illinois, 493 U.S 307 (1990). Good belief is also an exception of the general rule. It states that evidence obtained illegally by a police officer in belief that either the search does not require