discussion responses

1.  According to the text, “the exclusionary rule requires that any evidence obtained by police using methods that violate a person’s Fourth, Fifth, or Sixth Amendment rights must be excluded from use in a criminal prosecution against that person”. Previously under the common law, the illegal seizure of evidence did not effect the admissibility of that evidence in court. The development of the exclusionary rule had changed that following the case of Weeks V. United States. In short, anything that violates our rights or due process law is excluded from evidence at a trial. The primary injustice the exclusionary rule is used to prevent is police misconduct. In hindsight, it seems that the exclusionary rule is a beneficial tool that protects our individual rights in the criminal justice process. However, the only issue I see with the exclusionary rule is boundaries. I was not able to identify information regarding punishment of a perpetrator that committed an illegal act, but evidence was collected illegally. For example, if a police officer entered a home illegally (warrantless) and discovered 100lbs of heroin, what would happen in that case? The exclusionary rule states that evidence obtained by police illegally must be excluded from criminal prosecution. Therefore, does the person in possession of 100lbs of heroin get to walk free? In my opinion I believe the rule is very beneficial and our rights should always be protected but I believe there should be some clarity as to what happens to serious offenders when their evidence is excluded from criminal prosecution.