CRJ325 - WEEK 3 - DISCUSSION 3

"Interpreting the Exclusionary Rule"

Watch the video titled, “The Exclusionary Rule for Dummies – Mapp v Ohio and the 4th Amendment” (11 min 12 s). You can also view the video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cID59vrAY0M. Next, examine two (2) exceptions to the rule. Provide your opinion as to whether or not you believe that each of these exceptions is constitutional.

Exception to the rule are inclusive of 1) Good faith exception and its many variations, 2) The inevitable discovery exception, 3) The purged taint exception and 4) The independent source exception. In relation to the good faith exception this manner of approach is constitutional as long as the error is not committed by the police officer and there is no infringement of fairness or rights that may be racially motivated, bias, bigotry or hate to make arrests.

In the case of Mapp v Ohio, inevitable discovery exception is a variable and aspect that supports the act of questioning then act of pat and frisk and ultimate discovery of weapons. Therefore, in regard to this case reasonable suspicion was based on behavioralisms and active physical movements that confirmed a need to stop, question and frisk. Next, is the good faith exception that is also an allowable principle in this case because it is also based on reasonable suspicion and is admissible due to honest inquiry, pat and frisk and subsequent discovery.

Viewing the inevitable and the good faith exception with the exclusionary rule allows a supportive base to not only protect all parties rights but it is considerably accurate in preventing a violation of the Fourth Amendment that prevents unreasonable search and seizure that would therefore taint the evidence garnered.

Further in my opinion both are of these exceptions and are constitutional and work with fidelity and as a complement to uphold fairness, avoid entrapment and render the service of corrective policing to foil crimes, and help restructure policy and community to uphold the law.

Based on the information found in this chapter related to stop and frisk, examine two (2) actions as they relate to the fourth (4th) amendment and the arrest process. In your opinion, which should have the greatest constitutional protection, stop or frisk? Provide a rationale for your response.

As per the information found, two actions as they relate to the Fourth Amendment and arrest process are the stop and frisk. Both have constitutional protection – one for the perk (suspicious party) and one for the officer. Therefore, the stop is to ascertain if a criminal act has ensued or is ensuing. The act of frisking is not only for police protection and populace but it can also open the inquiry as to whether a concealed weapon is upon the perk which may be a danger to the populace or an additive to an act of crime or an act of aggression toward a policeman.

Example of Stop and Frisk

Terry v Ohio

Based upon this case, regulations and guidelines were stipulated to have policy changed and adapted to ensure the validity of the stop and frisk that adheres to the Exclusionary Rule and the Fourth Amendment.

In my opinion the ability to stop and question is the greatest constitutional protection because it allows the ability to address suspicious activity that occurs when policing authority arrives. There is no infringement for a stop and inquiry. The frisk is a more complicated procedure that can cause found evidence to either be allowed or dismissed. Therefore, it has to be done correctly and by the guidelines (the book) with all “I’s” dotted and all “T’s” crossed. Further as a scenario unwinds so does the prevalency of difficulty and exactness of staying within the rights granted to the police officers and rights guaranteed to the populace.

Thank you.

Felicia

REPLY TO CO-STUDENT

I agree with the possibility that the evidence may be admitted but without probable cause this could lead to a charge of harassment, racial profiling and may entail a serious fight on their hands. The legality of the manner to me must be sufficient to warrant and if warrant is not granted therefore as with common sense the noted eventual thought is that all evidence obtained can be motioned to dismiss.

Even though the inevitable discovery is proposed to be used still the act or discovery would never have been found because this was and is a violation of constitutional rights of privacy with the Fourth Amendment leading first in protest, secondly the Fourteenth Amendment would rears its head to protect privacy and help control the activities of government and circumvent taping or tracking unless confirmed by reasonable suspicion and probable cause with documentation of evidential wrong.

Otherwise, I agree with your point on the "stop".

Thank you.

Felicia