This
topic has been contentious between the conservatives and liberals within
the United States legislature. The debate about the constitutional tools
of enforcing the Fourth Amendment have brought about bills and legislation
in recent years. The necessity for the Fourth Amendment is widely agreed
upon, protecting people from unreasonable and unlawful searches and
seizures, however, the exclusionary rule (under which evidence collected
in a search in vilolation of the Fourth Amendment cannot ordinarily
be admissible in a trial) has been implemented because conservatives
the rule does not act as a deterrent for police misconduct and does
not aid in the search for the truth, in most cases. This has been an
issue of debate for the conservatives for roughly 30 years and when
they entered office in 1995, the exclusionary rule was an immediate
goal, which was shot down.
When law enforcement personnel, or agents acting under the executive
branch conduct an unlawful search and deliberately and knowingly carry
out such misconduct, it is the judicial branch who should execute the
checks and balances protocol and investigate For the judiciary, the
best time to exercise the limits of this rule is in the trial itself
when the prosecution introduces its evidence. Further, since the exclusionary
rule is essentially the sole method by which the judiciary can regulate
and question its warrant-issuing abilities, any act to revoke or question
the validity of the exclusionary rule by the legislature should be arguably
considered unsounded and inappropriate by the Supreme Court.
| HOME |