Exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule

Exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule

The exclusionary rule perfectly exemplifies the kind of constitutional doctrines that can morph to have radical undertones of political agenda. The rule was originally intended to be used by activist judges through a democratic and inclusive process. However, it has the precarious potential to be utilized by judges to impose their individual preferences or policies upon the law. The rationale for creating the exclusionary rule was to deter law enforcement agencies from using evidence which is obtained illegally in courts of law. The rule is used today to protect the constitutional rights of civilians from police infringement.

Curiously, the broad purpose of the rule as it is used today was not foreseen or considered by the people who drafted it. I believe that in some ways the rationale behind the exclusionary rule is unconstitutional and unfounded. To a great extent, the rule ignores the moral suppositions which inspired the invention of the Constitution, including natural law. As such, I believe concessions ought to be made to the exclusionary rule. Such exclusions must be carefully weighed and justified without losing track of the original intended purpose of the exclusionary rule (Spencer 615).

One of the main most widely applied exceptions to the exclusionary rule is the rule of independent sources. Courts often submit that evidence can be considered admissible so long as the prosecution is able to prove that the evidence was derived from a source which is unrelated to the initial illegality. Another exception is the rule of the intervening act of voluntary will. An action that voluntarily intervenes to validate the source that was obtained illegally removes the flaw in the source. This rule of exception was most famously applied in the United States versus Sun Wong trial (Oaks 675). Another exception to the exclusionary rule is the rule of good faith. If evidence is obtained through a search that an officer believed in good faith to be legal, the evidence may be admissible. The rule of good faith is not used in circumstances whereby the officer was aware of a defect in the warrant he uses to derive the evidence. The exclusionary rule is also subject to exceptions based on the rule of inevitable discovery. This rule requires the prosecution to prove beyond doubt that the police would have obtained the evidence through