Source is Criminal Evidence: Principles and Cases by Thomas J. Gardner and Terry

Source is Criminal Evidence: Principles and Cases by Thomas J. Gardner and Terry M. Anderson
FIRST PART
Discuss the arguments for an against the exclusionary rule. Be sure to provide examples and explain your position on the exclusionary rule.
Review the Nix v. Williams case and respond to the following: do you feel that the United States Supreme Court made the correct assumption in stating that the searchers probably would have found the deceased girl’s body, even without the information provided by Williams? If the United States Supreme Court had ruled that the subsequent discovery of the body and related evidence was fruit of the poisonous tree, would justice have been served? Why or why not?
What are the possible causes of mistaken eyewitness identification? Discuss each thoroughly.
Describe and discuss three examples of special needs searches. Be sure to provide examples within your answer.
What other ways, other than lineups, can be used by police to make the identification of a person as the perpetrator of a crime more reliable?
SECOND PART 50 word minimum response to the following:
The exclusionary rule is a judicial rule that makes evidence obtained in violation of the U.S. Constitution, state or federal laws, or court rules inadmissible (Gardner & Anderson, 2015). The purpose of the exclusionary rule is to deter and discourage police, such as violations of defendants’ constitutional rights, violations of defendants’ statutory rights, and violations of court rules. The decision in Miranda v. Arizona established that the exclusionary rule applies to improperly eliciting self-incriminatory statements gathered in violation of the Fifth Amendment and to evidence gained in situations where the government violated the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Some exceptions to the exclusionary rules are good-faith exception, independent source doctrine, inevitable discovery doctrine, attenuation doctrine, evidence admissible for impeachment, and qualified immunity. Under the good-faith exception, evidence is not excluded if it is obtained by officers who reasonably rely on a search warrant that turns out to be invalid. Also, the exclusionary rule does not apply when the police conduct a search in reliance on binding appellate precedent allowing the search. According to Exclusionary Rule, 2020, in Herring v. the U.S., the Court found that the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies when police employees erred in maintaining records in a warrant database. An independent source doctrine is evidence obtained initially during an unlawful search or seizure may later be admissible if the evidence is later obtained through a constitutionally valid search or seizure. The inevitable discovery doctrine allows admission of evidence that was discovered in an unlawful search or seizure if it would have been discovered in the same condition anyway, by an independent line of investigation that was already being pursued when the unlawful search or seizure occurred (Exclusionary Rule, 2020). Overall, the main purpose is to ensure that evidence is not illegally obtained in these different types of exceptions. I find it a bit perplexing to have a rule in place to exclude evidence, but then have so many exceptions to that rule. It seems that is the way the law works though. I don’t necessarily agree with the vast amount of exceptions, however, I can acknowledge that in some cases it may be necessary. One I disagree with is qualified immunity. Due to qualified immunity, the exclusionary rule is often a defendant’s only remedy when police officers conduct an unreasonable search or violate their Miranda rights (Exclusionary Rule, 2020). Furthermore, even if officers violate a defendant’s constitutional or statutory rights, qualified immunity protects the officers from a lawsuit unless no reasonable officer would believe that the officers’ conduct was legal. This would make it hard for the defendant to prove there was an unreasonable search simply because they are an officer.
THIRD PART 50 word minimum response to the following:
In order to preserve the integrity of the Judicial System, the Exclusionary Rule was created to prohibit evidence from being presented to the court that was obtained without following proper investigative procedures. Police actions, that are “deliberate, reckless, or grossly negligent” (Bradley, 2012), in obtaining evidence shall not be tolerated and the evidence will not be introduced into trial, at either the state or federal levels. The rule was put in place to protect citizen’s constitutional rights from illegal search and seizure, as listed in the Fourth and Fifth Amendment. (Gardner, 2015).
The Exclusionary Rule, however, has exceptions. Some of these exceptions include the Knock and Announce, Good Faith, and Balancing Test. The Knock and Announce was created to give a citizen enough notice that the police were at the door of the home and were serving a warrant. A minimum of 15 seconds was required before police could enter the premises and announce their presence and intentions. However, in the case of Mapp v. Ohio, the rule was challenged, and the Court decided that the police could violate this particular exception without repercussion. (Bradley, 2012) The Good Faith Exception was created to protect the law enforcement that was working on the basis that all warrants were in order. Good Faith was put in place in the instant that the warrant was obtained with false information, or a mistake was made by a clerk. The evidence was still admissible, and the officer would not be penalized, such as in the case of Herring v. United States. Here the executing officer depended on another county’s information about a warrant, which turned out to be erroneous. However, the evidence was still permitted. (Bradley, 2012). The Balancing Test Exception was created to decide whether or not to allow evidence that was obtained without following procedure. Especially, if suppressing the evidence is better or worse for the society’s well-being. In United States v. Rosa, the warrant would allow for a search of tax records, however, child pornography was discovered. The decided not to suppress the evidence. (Bradley, 2012).
I agree that the Exclusionary Rule with its exceptions has attained its potential. The Rule protects its citizens from deliberate negligence while the exclusions protect the greater good by not letting a chronic criminal, whether with first or multiple offenses, get away with breaking the law on a technicality. After all, law enforcement and the judicial system are worked by humans that are just as prone to mistakes as the rest of us. Also, I personally don’t know how well I would perform, filling or performing a warrant, especially knowing a drug dealer is in the house flushing the very evidence that hooked children on drugs.

Place this order or similar order and get an amazing discount. USE Discount code “GET20” for 20% discount