Criminal Law-Exclusionary Rule
A rule that has evolved over the years (and that is the subject of a good deal of controversy) is the so-called exclusionary rule. The exclusionary rule states that the courts will exclude evidence that was obtained as the result of an unreasonable search or seizure. The exclusionary rule is a rather general one, and over the years, the courts have applied several exceptions to the exclusionary rule.
The intent of the exclusionary rule is to control police behavior.
The intent of the exclusionary rule is to control police behavior. It is felt that if the police realize that evidence they obtain in violation of someone’s constitutional rights cannot be used in a criminal prosecution, they will control their behavior from that point forward, assuring that the constitutional rights of defendants are observed. The battle over the exclusionary rule has raged for nearly forty years, with some people arguing that it makes no sense to allow the criminal to go free simply because the police have bungled. People on the other side of the issue argue that the only way that the police can be controlled is by excluding evidence that they obtain illegally.
In order for a defendant to rely on the exclusionary rule, he or she must assert and prove that he or she has standing to challenge the alleged constitutional violation. This requirement of standing, or having an appropriate interest in the outcome of the case, is a general requirement for asserting any constitutional right. An example of where a defendant would not have standing arises when an illegal seizure of narcotics in the home of Defendant A leads to the subsequent arrest of Defendant B at another location. The narcotics in that case could not be used in evidence against A, because A has standing to object to the illegal arrest. The narcotics could be introduced against B, as B has no standing to object because it was not his home that was illegally searched and he was not the one who was illegally arrested. In that case, B would not have standing to raise a constitutional objection in order to exclude the evidence.
