The exclusionary rule remains to be relevant in our present legal environment. According to Slogobin (2013, p. 345), the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Mapp v. Ohio stated that the exclusionary rule is derived from constitutional origin and stays completely undisturbed which means that the Fourth Amendment mandates the suppression of illegally seized evidence
in spite of its effect on the police and an efficient means to prevent police misconduct. As an effect, any evidence that is illegally obtained and violates the Fourth Amendment for unreasonable searches and seizure is inadmissible in court. There is a presumption that the police have a greater chance to engage in illegal searches and seizures if they know that such evidence obtained cannot be presented in court.
In the case of Adamson v. State of California, the possible practical legal and policy consequences as stated by Justice Black is that the courts have the power to strike down any of the legislative enactments which run counter with the provisions of the Constitution. Such act of the courts will require their interpretation of the law, which may oftentimes contradict or expand the meaning and intention of the provisions of the Constitution. Thus, during court proceedings such as the presentation of evidence, map out the boundaries based on the limits of the Constitution based on clearly executed policies and implement a broad perspective of their own beliefs based on their perception of reasonableness that will work for the advantage of the people.
In the case of Katz vs. United States, the Supreme Court held that the new concept of electronic surveillance violates the constitution if there is a transgression of a reasonable expectation of privacy and there is no longer a need for trespass. These activities shall refer to the act of the police which violates a reasonable expectance of privacy in the form of electronic surveillance, with or without the presence of an actual wiretapping or physical trespassing. The Court held that the act of the police in placing a listening device is a violation of the defendant’s right to privacy under the Fourth Amendment. This case has abandoned the old doctrine of “some trespass into a constitutionally protected area”. These activities shall refer to the act of the police which violates a reasonable expectance of privacy. The activities that are included in this coverage are any form of electronic surveillance, with or without the presence of an actual wiretapping or physical trespassing. In this particular case, while defendant was using a public telephone booth, the police attached an electronic listening device even though there was no actual or physical tapping of the line. The Court held that the act of the police in placing a listening device is a violation of the defendant’s right to privacy. The Court stated that there was a violation of the Fourth Amendment by installing an electronic and listening device outside the telephone booth to record the conversation made by Katz.
Justice White concurred that tracking and recording the conversations of the defendant in a public telephone should be subjected to the reasonableness test under the Fourth Amendment, provided that it does not cause an interference with the legitimate needs of the police. However, the opinion of Justice White in the case of Chimel v. California was reversed when he opined that there are circumstances when a warrantless arrest is required and the law must generally permit the search and allow the arresting officers even without a warrant to lawfully conduct a search on the premises. He explained that the existence of probable cause must have to be established in order to provide a justification for the police to conduct a broader search for evidence. The purpose of the Fourth Amendment is to guard the scope of searches allowed under the Constitution. In fact, he stated that to delay the search in order to secure a valid search warrant will involve the risk of failure to recover the fruits of the crime.
The Fourteenth Amendment is the same or equal to the original Bill of Rights that the since it is has been created for the provisions of the Bill of Rights which has to be applied to all States. The opinion of Justice White stated that the right to a jury trial in criminal cases is a right that has been a part of the tradition of the criminal justice system in America. The right to a grand jury trial falls within the guaranteed rights under the Fourteenth Amendment that should be recognized by all states.
On the other hand, the concurring opinion of Justice Black maintains for total incorporation in the sense that the amendments made in the Bill of Rights should be recognized by all states as stated in the Fourteenth Amendment which allows the right to a grand jury trial.
While the dissenting opinion of Justice Harlan maintains that the “Due Process Clause” under the Fourteenth Amendment demands that procedures should be applied fairly and does not impose uniformity among all states. The States are not mandated to impose the right to a grand jury trial for the sake of uniformity, unless these rules will manifest that they are necessary to observe fairness and equality.
Adamson v. People State of California, 332 U.S. 46 (1947)
Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969)
Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967)
Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961)
Rychlak, R.J. (2010). Replacing the Exclusionary Rule: Fourth Amendment Violations as Direct
Criminal Contempt. Web. Retrieved from,
Slobogin, C. (2013). The Exclusionary Rule: Is It on Its Way Out? Should It Be? Ohio State