Assignment 6

After reading the article, "U.S. Is Alone in Rejecting All if Police Err," I come to the conclusion that Justice Breyer's statement that the exclusion of evidence is a
deterrent to police misconduct is true. In summary, the article summarizes numerous cases where evidence was suppresed as a result of an unlawful search by
police, but only in the United States under the exclusionary rule does this happen. The United States is the only country to take the position that some police
misconduct must automatically result in the suppression of physical evidence. The rule applies whether the misconduct is slight or serious, and without regard to the
gravity of the crime or the power of the evidence. “Foreign countries have flatly reje cted our approach,” said Craig M. Bradley, an expert in comparative criminal law
at Indiana University. “In every other country, it’s up to the trial judge to decide whether police misconduct has risen to the level of requiring the exclusion of
evidence.” Australia also uses a balancing test. It considers the seriousness of the police misconduct, whether superiors approved or tolerated it, the gravity of the
crime and the power of the evidence. “Any unfairness to the particular accused” in most cases, the High Court of Australia wrote in 1995, “will be of no more than
peripheral importance.” Elsewhere, the European Court of Human Rights, a notably liberal institution, refused in 2000 to require the suppression of illegally obtained
evidence. Using such evidence to convict a man charged with importing heroin into England, the court said, did not make his trial unfair. In the United States, by
contrast, evidence against criminal defendants is routinely and automatically suppressed when police misconduct is found. In the last week of June, for instance,
courts in Georgia, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Washington state suppressed evidence in cases involving drugs, guns, burglary and child pornography under the
mandatory version of the exclusionary rule. Some specialists in comparative criminal law say that the decentralized nature of American law enforcement, with
thousands of local police departments around the nation, requires a more rigorous and consistent approach to deterring misconduct. The law enforcement systems in
Canada and England, by contrast, are notably less fragmented and may be subject to more stringent professional discipline. Supporters of the American practice say
that only strict application of the exclusionary rule can effectively address violations of the Fourth Amendment, which bans unreasonable searches and seizures.
Opponents of the rule say it is indirect, incomplete and in a way perverse. Even if it deters unlawful searches, exclusion of evidence, for instance, offers no remedy to
innocent people whose rights were violated by unlawful searches. The Supreme Court started requiring the exclusion of improperly obtained evidence in 1914 — but
only in federal cases. For many decades afterward, the Supreme Court refused to apply the principle to states, saying they could choose the appropriate remedy for
police misconduct — including civil suits and criminal prosecutions — and20were not required to suppress evidence. In a 1949 decision, the court justified that position
in part with a rationale now disfavored in some circles: a survey of foreign law. It was not until 1961 that the Warren Court, in one of its signature decisions,
concluded in Mapp v. Ohio that only the mandatory suppression of evidence could adequately address wrongdoing by the police in all cases, state and federal. To
conclude, much has changed since the exclusionary rule was applied to states in 1961, Justice Scalia wrote. Police departments had become more professional, he
said, and various kinds of civil suits against officials and the government had become available. “As far as we know,” Justice Scalia wrote for the court, “civil liability
is an effective deterrent.” In conclusion, I believe it seems that the court system needs to find a "reason" to justify when police misconduct is being used in cases.
But if evidence of wrongdoing is found even when police are not searching for it, it should be used to convict a person because I believe that person had wrong intentions
is mind and should be convicted of all the additional charges, as long as there was a reason they were being searched by police in the first place. Only if they were
targeted for no reason by police should then the idea of police misconduct be used. The exclusionary rule is important depending on the case, but I don't believe in ALL cases.


Warrantless search/seizure in a home
I had an accident, left the scene and walked home. Officers searched my car and found two empty beer cans in my car. There were also about a dozen diet pepsi cans there. I talked to the dispatcher and admitted having an accident. I told her there were no injuries and that I had not been drinking. The officers proceeded to my home. When they arrived I was in another room. My daughter (minor) answered the door. While she went to get me, the officers entered the house. They did not ask for or receive consent to enter. When I entered the room they immediately told me to stop drinking my drink and ''Do not leave this room''.
Questions: Is the presence of two empty cans sufficient probable cause to justify a warrantless entry into my home? Does the concern that I might drink before they arrived rise to the level of ''exigent circumstances''? When they told me to stay in the room, did that constitute unlawful arrest/seizure? ( "Warrantless Search,"2004)
Since that would be considered a hit and run this situation would fall under the category of plain sight search warrant since there were beer cans in the car and the defendant walked away from the scene. Since that person had committed a crime the arresting officers had the right to come and arrest the person for fleeing the scene. The fact that there were two empty cans is moot, its the fact that the person had fled the scene of an accident.

The purpose of the Miranda warning is to inform a person who is being taken into custody of their rights before they decide to speak; if they want to at all.
“The Miranda warning applies only to the right to have an attorney present. The suspect cannot demand to speak to a priest, probation officer, or any other official.” If a suspect speaks misinterprets the Miranda warning and speaks to a probation officer in front of police, they can use whatever he/she in a court of law.
“A voluntary statement given in absence of a Miranda warning can be used to obtain evidence that can be used at trial. Failure to give the warning does not make seizure of evidence illegal per se.” If a suspect says that the dead body was buried near a certain lake without his/her Miranda warning being read, law enforcement can still go look for that evidence and present it in court.
“A suspect who makes an ambiguous reference to an attorney during questioning, such as “maybe I should talk to an attorney,” is not protected under Miranda. The police may continue their questioning. Police are interrogating a suspect and a suspect states an alibi and police counter, police prove that alibi to be incorrect. They can still question him if they want to weather he approves or not.


Heinz, R. (2009, January 27). Blog Fodder: It`s everywhere. Retrieved from http://www.sfolife.net/?p=140.

Liptal, A. (2008, July 19). U.S. is alone in rejecting all evidence if police err. The New York Times. Retried from http://www.nytimes.com.

Siegel, L. (2008). Introduction to criminal justice. Belmont: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.

Warrantless search/seizure in a home.(2004) Retrived March 31, 2004, from http://www.lawguru.com/legal-questions/florida-constitutional-law/warantless-searchseizure-home-accident-left-412374314