POLS 4900 Lecture Notes - Lecture 12: Exclusionary Rule
5 May 2018
School
Department
Course
Professor
Kim 1
. This ‘exclusionary rule’ protected the citizens’ Fourth Amendment which states that
officers cannot search homes or seize items without warrants. This court cases adopted a penalty
for the officers in the case of a unlawful search and seizure. Police were now held accountable to
their actions and their actions had the consequence of not being able to use the evidence found.
(Ma, 2012, p.321) This provided citizens of the United States with additional protection
regarding illegal searches and seizures.
The exclusionary rule also led to the creation of the ‘Fruit of the Poisonous Tree
Doctrine’ which expanded the scope of the Exclusionary Rule. (Gaines and Worrall, 2012, p.
455) This doctrine required that not only is the evidence from the illegal search and seizure
inadmissible, but also declared any additional evidence or “fruit” inadmissible as well.
Another significant case is Escobedo v Illinois. Escobedo was arrested and interrogated at
the police station. When he asked to see his lawyer, the officers denied his request and refused to
let his lawyer enter the interrogation room. He was also not warned of his Fifth Amendment to
remain silent. During his interrogation, Escobedo confessed to murdering someone and was thus
convicted. During court, Escobedo appealed to the Supreme Court saying that he was denied of
his right to counsel. The Court ruled in favor of Escobedo and used the Exclusionary Rule used
in Mapp v Ohio and claimed that Escobedo’s confession should not have been allowed as
evidence in court. Because Escobedo was denied of his right to counsel and was held in the
interrogation room, the Court ruled this case as a violation of the defendant’s Fifth and Sixth
Amendment.
The Fifth Amendment states that “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or
otherwise infamous crime…”. The police violated the Fifth Amendment by holding Escobedo in
the interrogation room and not warning him of his right to remain silent. The Sixth Amendment
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Document Summary
This exclusionary rule" protected the citizens" fourth amendment which states that officers cannot search homes or seize items without warrants. This court cases adopted a penalty for the officers in the case of a unlawful search and seizure. The exclusionary rule also led to the creation of the fruit of the poisonous tree. Escobedo was arrested and interrogated at the police station. When he asked to see his lawyer, the officers denied his request and refused to let his lawyer enter the interrogation room. He was also not warned of his fifth amendment to remain silent. During his interrogation, escobedo confessed to murdering someone and was thus convicted. During court, escobedo appealed to the supreme court saying that he was denied of his right to counsel. The court ruled in favor of escobedo and used the exclusionary rule used in mapp v ohio and claimed that escobedo"s confession should not have been allowed as evidence in court.
