What do you think about suppressing certain evidence because it has been obtained illegally? How does it relat

Question

What do you think about suppressing certain evidence because it has been obtained illegally? How does it relate to the Constitutional right to due process?

Answer 1

The right to exclusion of illegally obtained evidence and the right to due process are two separate areas. A right to a hearing on whether evidence should be excluded is encompassed in the right to due process.

The fourth amendment to the US Const. provides a fundamental right to be free from unreasonable searches by law enforcement. The exclusionary rule is in place to deter police misconduct and protect the individual's right to be free from unreasonable searches.

If the police conduct an illegal search, they have violated a person's right, and the person is entitled to suppression and exclusion of the evidence. Again, due process would mandate a determination of the illegality of the search, and pursuant to the exclusionary rule, suppression of the evidence if the search is deemed illegal.

Without the exclusionary rule, police would be inclined to kick down anyone's door at any time, warrant or not, and search for no reason with the hopes of finding evidence of a crime. This would eliminate the protection of the fourth amendment.

As a result, the law favors the suppression of evidence of crime which was obtained illegally in order to protect EVERYONE's fundamental right over a conviction of one person who is guilty of one crime.

Answer 2

Despite the simple answers outlined above, this is a legitimate subject that has been debated for years. The US Supreme Court created the exclusionary rule to deter unlawful conduct by law enforcement officials. The Constitution does not say that evidence obtained illegally may not be used. The question is whether granting a windfall to a criminal defendant, possible acquittal, is the proper remedy for such a violation. Are there other possible sanctions that could be given to law enforcement officers that may be as effective, or even more effective, than exclusion of the evidence? Should there be a scale of penalties depending on the "intent" of the law enforcement personnel?

These are legitimate questions that are debated in legal circles but many people do not understand that there are choices to be made. The exclusionary rule is only about 50 years old and yet it is seen as set in stone in this country.

Answer 3

Generally, and it has been a little while since I took a law school class on criminal procedure (so bear with), evidence is not suppressed as a violation of the right to due process. Evidence is suppressed in criminal trials based on a violation of the 4th amendment referring to the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures.

The 4th amendment is still crucial today to protect individual privacy in our society against intrusions by the government. While some illegally siezed evidence may be crucial to a criminal case, it should be suppressed under certain circumstances to protect the integrity of our system and grant the citizenry the freedom the 4th amendment purports to grant.

Due process is split into two categories: (i) procedural and (ii) substantive. These both have to do with general fairness of a trial. For example procedural due process protects an individuals right to a fair hearing and an opportunity to be heard. Substantive due process, which has changed greatly over the years, is the doctrine that is used to protect the right to an abortion.

These topics are complicated, so I hope this provides a satisfactory overview.

Answer 4

It can suck for the prosecutor because it may be the key to his case. But it has to be done. The fourth amendment reads:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

It's there to keep the government honest. It makes sure the cops have their act together BEFORE they come crashing into your house.

Answer 5

That is the basis of Constitutional protection. The prosecution must do everything legally, or the evidence does not get admitted. Two wrongs do not make a right.

Answer 6

It kept me from going to prison for 10 years. I am a firm believer of freedom from illegal search and seizure.

Answer 7

It is referred to as 'fruit from the poisonous tree'. I don't see how it affects due process.

Answer 8

Because it was obtained illegally, crap man what part of illegal do you not understand.

Answer 9

I think its retarded, to me evidence is evidence iif it rpives someone did the crime, why does it matter how it was obtained.