What legal principle prevents evidence from being used even if it was obtained only indirectly from a violation of the defendants constitutional rights?
|
journal article Show
Irish Jurist New Series, Vol. 46 (2011) , pp. 38-73 (36 pages) Published By: Irish Jurist https://www.jstor.org/stable/44027087 Read and download Log in through your school or library Read Online (Free) relies on page scans, which are not currently available to screen readers. To access this article, please contact JSTOR User Support. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.With a personal account, you can read up to 100 articles each month for free. Get StartedAlready have an account? Log in Monthly Plan
Yearly Plan
Journal Information The Irish Jurist is Ireland's oldest established academic law journal and is edited by the staff in the UCD Sutherland School of Law, University College Dublin. The Jurist is a generalist journal and welcomes submissions from both the legal community in Ireland and the wider international community. In this regard it strives to maintain a balance between material that has a more specific Irish focus or relevance and material that is more international in scope. The Irish Jurist publishes peer reviewed articles within the broad categories of historical and modern jurisprudence as well as comments, case notes, and book reviews. The Jurist is committed to publishing material that meets high standards in legal scholarship and to cultivating a critical understanding of law as it is understood and practised. The journal has a wide readership that comprises in the main legal academics, practitioners and judges. The Jurist is published twice a year in March/April and in November/December.The website address is: www.irishjurist.com Publisher Information Round Hall provides quality information on Irish law in the form of books, journals, periodicals, looseleaf services, CD-ROMs and online services. Customers include members of the judiciary, legal practitioners, academics, law students and other professional both in Ireland and abroad. Round Hall is part of Thomson Reuters and is based in Dublin. Rights & Usage This item is part of a JSTOR Collection. A doctrine that makes unconstitutionally obtained evidence inadmissible.American courts use the exclusionary rule to deter police officers and other government agents from abusing constitutional rights. According to the rule, courts will suppress evidence that the government obtains through unconstitutional conduct—often an unlawful search or seizure. Suppression means that the evidence in question will be inadmissible for most purposes in the defendant's eventual trial. If a judge suppresses crucial evidence, the prosecution may have no other choice than to dismiss charges. (See What Is a Motion to Suppress?) The exclusionary rule applies to evidence that's a direct product of a constitutional violation. It also comes into play when such a violation leads less directly to incriminating evidence. Suppose officers, without reasonable suspicion or probable cause, stop a man walking down the street. Though he's done nothing to deserve it, they search him. They find in his pocket a scrap of paper saying, "Drugs are under garbage bin at 123 Jones Street." The officers go to the address, peek under the garbage bin they see there, and find a bag of various narcotics. Both the note and the drugs were a product of an illegal stop and search, so neither will be admissible to prove the man's guilt.
For more information on the exclusionary rule, including exceptions, see Fruit of the Poisonous Tree and Police Searches and the Good Faith Exception. Also see Statements Obtained When Police Violate Miranda. What is meant by the term exclusionary rule?Overview. The exclusionary rule prevents the government from using most evidence gathered in violation of the United States Constitution. The decision in Mapp v. Ohio established that the exclusionary rule applies to evidence gained from an unreasonable search or seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
Which doctrine holds that illegally seized evidence can be introduced at trial if the officials would have found the evidence anyway?Which doctrine holds that illegally seized evidence can be introduced at trial, if the officials would have found the evidence anyway? The exclusionary rule is written in the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution.
What is the independent source exception?In US law, the independent source doctrine is an exception to the exclusionary rule. The doctrine applies to evidence initially discovered during, or as a consequence of, an unlawful search, but later obtained independently from activities untainted by the initial illegality.
What exception allows the use of illegally obtained evidence in Nontrial proceedings?Terms in this set (20)
What exception allows the use of illegally obtained evidence in nontrial proceedings? [bail hearings..]
|
