The Exclusionary Rule

1) The Exclusionary Rule is not constitutionally created; rather, the Rule is a mechanism designed to protect constitutional rights. In particular, the Rule was created, in large part, to deter police misconduct. If police obtain evidence in a manner that is inconsistent with an individual’s constitutional rights, evidence seized as a result may be excluded. However, the Rule has a large number of exceptions, and many criticize the Rule’s effectiveness at police deterrence. Does the Rule serve as an effective deterrent mechanism to police misconduct? Explain your answer with case examples and/or peer-reviewed sources. Note: Your response should indicate an understanding of the exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule and how they apply to factual scenarios.

I would definitely say that the rule has deterred a large number of police from attempting to retrieve evidence in a way that would infringe on someones rights, but there is always going to be some who are not deterred at all. Knowing that there are exceptions to the exclusionary rule, there can always be a chance that an officer could try to get one of them applied to the case they are on even if it may not have been true. Each exception can be allowed in different scenarios. The exclusionary rule has some exceptions to the rule and each of them have been applied in previous cases. The Good Faith exception was first introduced in United States v. Leon in 1984. This case ruled the officers direction due to them having good faith that they warrant was valid. According to the Illinois Bar Journal, “The Supreme Court held that when a police officer relies on good faith on a facially valid search warrant that is in fact, legally defective, the evidence seized may be admitted at trial” (Gillespie, 1989). Since the officers genuinely were not aware of the issues with the warrant, that is what created the Good Faith exception to the rule.

The Independent Source exception was made known in the case of Murray v. United States in which evidence was discovered during an illegal search or observation but is later discovered again with legal searches or activities. The bar journal states that “Inevitable discovery is prospective and applies when the challenged evidence would have been discovered by lawful means independent of the police misconduct” (Karzen, 1999). If detective can receive the information that they needs from an independent source, it can help lead to an inevitable discovery. The Attenuation doctrine was made better known by Utah v. Strieff in which someone was unlawfully stopped but the officers found an existing warrant for the individual which made the search for evidence lawful. The final exception is the impeachment exception, which was first used in Walder v. United States which attacked the defendants credibility which ultimately allowed the illegally seized evidence in the court.

2) Law enforcement is motivated to obtain confessions. However, the Fifth Amendment places a number of restrictions upon law enforcement when conducting interrogations.

a. Offenders present with a number of factors that must be considered when conducting an interrogation. Variables such as age, mental health, IQ, substance use and even lack of sleep, may cause the investigator to question the accused’s ability to voluntarily waive Miranda and to participate in the interrogation. What steps must law enforcement take to ensure that an accused’s willingness to communicate with law enforcement during an interrogation is voluntary?

Many false confessions are either voluntary, coerced, or introduced during interrogation. Law enforcement must make sure that the accused is in the right state of mind when they choose to waive their miranda rights. Sometimes an innocent person may waive them thinking there would be nothing they could say that would incriminate them for the crime, in which they could be so wrong. Law enforcement should test the individual in question to see if they fall into any of the common variables which would question their ability to voluntarily waive their rights. Law enforcement should also make sure that they are briefed on what exactly their rights are and that they do in fact have the ability to use them. They should also make sure the individual is not trying to “protect the actual perpetrator” and doing what they can to prevent the actual criminal from being brought to justice (Redlich, 2014). By doing so, the agency could limit or hopefully end false confessions being given.

b. Why do innocent people confess to crimes they did not commit? You must cite to at least 3 reasons. Further, please discuss the impact of false confessions and suggest procedures that can be implemented from a law enforcement perspective to reduce false confessions.

Many false confessions are made after long hours of interrogation and “through psychological trickery and deceit” (Davis, 2022). A lot of false confessions include details and were not made known to the public but somehow the suspect knew about them. According to the interview Lester Holt had with Saul Kassin, people tend to learn information about the crime they are being accused of through the interrogation discussions. Kassin mentioned the case of the Central Park Five and revealed that the accused were shown crime scene photos and taken back to the scene after the crime. (NBC, 2019). When providing information like this to innocent suspects, it can cause them to believe they did it or decide it is easier just to confess to something they did not do. Suspects can be overwhelmed and just decide to admit to the crime even when they had absolutely nothing to do with it. Something else that Kassin mentioned in the interview was that a common answer from a wrongly convicted innocent person was that they “just wanted to go home”, basically thinking that if they confessed, it would end all of it. The impact of false confessions is quite literally insane. Not only does a false confession let an actual criminal roam free, but it also takes away the life of someone who did nothing wrong. So many people have recently been released over a finding of a false confession and some cases even found the actual perpetrator of the crimes. Procedures that can be implemented in the scenario could include making sure that details do not get revealed during the interrogation that could allow the suspect to use it later on in a false confession. It could also include not extending each interrogation time frame to be hours on end allowing detectives to aggressively interrogate someone to the point of breaking down.