Exclusionary Rule should continue to be a Constitutional mandate

  Read Discussion Post 1 and Discussion Post 2 and reply to them with 2 paragraphs each . Include reference when responding to the discussion posts. Use APA format for reference and include page numbers when citing information. Discussion Post 1 1. It is my opinion that, yes, the 1.Exclusionary Rule should continue to be a Constitutional mandate. As we learned in Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961), maintaining the Exclusionary Rule is the only way to enforce the protection of the defendant’s rights under the 4th Amendment. In the past, overzealous police officers would use any means necessary to apprehend the defendant, even if it meant violating their constitutional rights. This meant that in apprehending a criminal, the officers themselves were also committing a crime. In order to maintain a true sense of justice, we must follow the law. That means as citizens and as those that would enforce it. If the result of continued use of the Exclusionary Rule is that a “clearly guilty” defendant gets his/her charges dismissed, then it is up to the investigator to present all the circumstantial evidence to the Judge in a matter that will convince the Judge to sign the necessary search warrant to obtain the actual physical evidence. If the investigator has actual physical evidence, then he/she needs to ensure that all steps taken from that moment forward are by the book and legitimate so as to secure a conviction. Now, an investigator can take all the proper precautions to secure a conviction and the result might still be that the Defendant gets to go free, however, the protection of civil rights is paramount. This allows society and its citizens to trust the justice system. Once an investigator forgets about civil or constitutional rights, they lose faith with the people. This will in essence make their jobs harder in the future. No crime is perfect. A criminal will always leave some way to get caught. It is the job of the justice system to abide by its most sacred credo: Innocent until proven guilty. That guilt is proven in a court of law by a jury of peers. NOT by the investigator trying to make a bust. Discussion Post 2 2. There have been situations wherein the investigator has obtained evidence via a warrant and later it was determined that the warrant was invalid. The courts have used the Good Faith Exception to allow the evidence. However, this is only permitted where the officer thought he had a valid warrant to obtain the evidence and thus the rights of the Defendant were not violated. Reliable evidence can be obtained via a warrant and therefore protecting the Due Process of the Defendant and ensuring that justice is served. Without the Exclusionary Rule there is no way to hold law enforcement accountable when the question of civil violations has occurred. While the Exclusionary Rule has been justified in order to deter police misconduct, in the past it has been under scrutiny because some feel that the criminal is now to go free due to an error in part of the police. However, the New Jersey Supreme Court stated it best when they determined that [abolishing] the Exclusionary Rule would “ultimately reduce respect for and compliance with the probable cause standard” established in the US Constitution.