The exclusionary rule provides that evidence obtained by government officials in violation of the Fourth Amendment ban on unreasonable searches and seizures is not admissible in: a criminal proceeding as evidence of guilt. The purpose of the exclusionary rule is to: deter police misconduct
The basic idea behind the good faith exception is that the exclusionary rule should only apply if there was: deterrable misconduct by the police. Which of the following is one of the four general exceptions to the exclusionary rule:
T/F: The four categories of expectations to the exclusionary rule are good faith, inevitable discovery, purged taint, and independent sources. True Sets found in the same folder
True or False: U.S. Supreme Court decisions strongly suggest that the exclusionary rule applies only to Fourth Amendment search and seizure cases. False True or False: The first case in which the U.S. Supreme Court utilized the exclusionary rule was Miranda Vs.
Three exceptions to the exclusionary rule are "attenuation of the taint," "independent source," and "inevitable discovery."
Terms in this set (15) -[Independent source exception, inevitable discovery exception, attenuation of the taint, good faith, knock and announce, impeachment, limit use outside of criminal cases].
The exclusionary rule states that illegally-obtained evidence and statements obtained through an illegal interrogation, in violation of the Fourth, Fifth, or Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution, are inadmissible at the criminal trial of a person whose rights were violated.
Officers can rely on a warrant as long as: 1) the warrant was not obtained by fraud; 2) the warrant was not defective on its face; 3) the magistrate did not wholly abandon his judicial role.
The exclusionary rule is designed to exclude evidence obtained in violation of a criminal defendant's Fourth Amendment rights. The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures by law enforcement personnel.
Which of the following is not currently an exception to the exclusionary rule? The exclusionary rule provides that evidence obtained by government officials in violation of the Fourth Amendment ban on unreasonable searches and seizures is not admissible in: a criminal proceeding as evidence of guilt.
Courts have also carved out several exceptions to the exclusionary rule where the costs of exclusion outweigh its deterrent or remedial benefits. For example, the good-faith exception, below, does not trigger the rule because excluding the evidence would not deter police officers from violating the law in the future.
One of the most important exceptions to the exclusionary rule is the exception for tangible evidence. If the police discover tangible evidence based on statements obtained in violation of Miranda, the prosecution may be able to use that evidence against the defendant at trial.
Which of the following falls under the exclusionary rule? Suspect confessions given without proper reading of Miranda rights cannot be used at trial. Illegally or unconstitutionally acquired evidence cannot be used in a trial.
An exception to the Supreme Court exclusionary rule, holding that evidence seized on the basis of a mistakenly issued search warrant can be introduced at trial if the mistake was made in good faith, that is, if all the parties involved had reason at the time to believe that the warrant was proper.
The good-faith exception applies to police officers who act in good faith on either a facially valid warrant later determined to be invalid or an existing law later declared unconstitutional. Good faith is limited to the objective good faith of a reasonable police officer.
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.
The purpose of the exclusionary rule is to: deter police misconduct.
The U.S. Supreme Court made the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule binding in all federal court cases in the 1914 case of: Weeks Vs. Ohio. The prosecution must show beyond a reasonable doubt that the evidence erroneously admitted did not contribute to the conviction in order to prove: harmless error.