The Exclusinary Rule essay

The Exclusinary Rule essay The Exclusinary Rule essay The Exclusinary Rule essayIt has been found that the Exclusionary Rule is one of the major topics associated with the application of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.   According to researchers, the Exclusionary Rule â€Å"requires the suppression of any evidence obtained unconstitutionally; that is the evidence cannot be used in the trial by the government†(Hensley Snook, 2007, p. 160). Actually, the Exclusionary Rule is not included in the U.S. Constitution, but it was established by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1914, while ruling the case Weeks v. United States (1914).   In general, the Exclusionary Rule has been a controversial legal issue in the criminal justice system, since its creation because the application of the rule to the legal case may affect the significance of the evidence through its exclusion, and the acquittal of the individuals who can be regarded factually guilty (Hemmens et al., 2009). There are three major exceptions to the Exclusionary R ule created by the U. S. Supreme Court, including independent source exception, good faith exception and inevitable discovery rule, which justify the applicability of the rule.The major goal of this paper is to discuss the Exclusionary Rule and its exceptions created by the U. S. Supreme Court, paying due attention to the background information regarding the Exclusionary Rule and the current status of the rule.The Exclusionary Rule: background informationThe Exclusionary Rule can be viewed as an important constitutional development that can be effectively used in the criminal justice practice. In fact, the Exclusionary Rule says that â€Å"evidence that is obtained by an unconstitutional search or seizure is inadmissible at trial† (Bast Hawkins, 2010, p. 573). The Exclusionary Rule announced by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1914 continues to play an important role in legal practice. However, initially, the Exclusionary Rule was not included in the due process clause of the Fourt eenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. As such, the Exclusionary Rule was not applied to various legal proceedings of the State Courts. In 1961, reviewing the case Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, this application of the Exclusionary Rule was changed because the U.S. Supreme Court â€Å"declared that the evidence obtained in violation of the Constitution could not be used in state or federal criminal proceedings† (Bast Hawkins, 2010, p. 573).The major goal of the Exclusionary Rule is to deter police misconduct or unethical behavior in relation to community members. The proponents of the Exclusionary Rule state that the rule emanates from the U.S. Constitution, while the opponents of the rule state that it has elation to the established constitutional rights (Kerr, 2010). Actually, â€Å"the Supreme Court has indicated that it is merely a judicially created remedy for Violations of the Fourth Amendment†(Hemmens et al., 2009, p. 127).In addition, the Exclusionary Rule has been a controversial issue in the criminal justice system. The intense debates were connected with the lack of the proper textual language in the U.S Constitution regarding the applicability of the rule. This fact can be explained by the fact that many opponents the rule suggest that the authority of the U.S. Supreme Court has been exceeded by this rule. They argue that the legislative branch is responsible for issuing such laws, rules and regulation (Bast Hawkins, 2010).However, there is another view of this issue. The proponents of the Exclusionary Rule consider that the Bill of Rights is unproductive without the application of the Exclusionary Rule (Kerr, 2010). In fact, many issues can be resolved prior to trial in the court through the application of the so-called motion to suppress (Bast Hawkins, 2010; Hemmens et al., 2009). The United States is the only nation that protects citizens from illegal searches and seizures conducted by the police through the application of the E xclusionary Rule.Current status of the Exclusionary Ruleand its exceptions created by the U. S. Supreme CourtIn the 1980s, the scope of the Exclusionary Rule was limited by more conservative action of the U.S. Supreme Court. As a matter of fact, there are three major exceptions that should be taken into consideration by the Court, including â€Å"independent source exception, good faith exception and inevitable discovery rule† (Siegel, 2009, p. 345). Court decisions refer to the situations in which the evidence obtained by the police can be viewed as admissible in court; even there are some violations in police conduct or in the warrant issued by the court (Kerr, 2010).Independent source exception  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Independent source exception is a rule that permits the admission of evidence that has been obtained â€Å"by means wholly independent of any constitutional violation† (Siegel, 2009, p. 345). For example, if a police officer makes a decision to enter the house of a drug dealer or any other person involved in criminal activity with an arrest warrant, he has the right to search his house in order to seize important evidence, such as drugs, weapons, etc. The illegally obtained evidence can be used in the court, if, independently, a warrant has been issued to search the house for the same kind of evidence but â€Å"had not yet arrived in the scene† (Siegel, 2009, p. 345). In other words, independent source exception can be viewed as the admissible evidence obtained by the police if they can prove its independent source not linked with the illegal search or seizure (Siegel, 2009). There are two cases that can be used as examples of application of this rule: United States v. Crews (1981) and State v. O’Brernski (1967). In the case United States v. Crews (1981), the Court ruled that the initial illegal use of evidence could not affect the prosecutors’ decision to prove guilt through the applicati on of evidence obtained by the police in a constitutional manner. In the case State v. O’Brernski (1967), the testimony of a teenager girl, who was found in the house during the illegal search, regarding the defendant’s involvement in sexual activity with her, can be regarded as admissible in the court.Good faith exceptionGood faith exception to the Exclusionary Rule is a rule that permits the admission of evidence obtained by the police even there were some mistakes which can be characterized as honest, reasonable and objective. Actually, â€Å"the honest and objectively reasonable belief† by the police officer is crucial to make the act lawful (Hensley Snook, 2007, p.345). According to the court’s decision, there are seven situations that come from actual legal cases and constitute the exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule under the category of good faith exception:when the judge (or magistrate) made a mistake (the case Massachusetts v. Shappard, 1984);w hen the court employee made a mistake (the case Arizona v. Evans, 1995);when the police officers â€Å"erroneously, but honestly and reasonably† believed that the information they provided to the court was accurate (the case Maryland v. Garrison, 1987);when the police believed the person, who permitted them to enter a building or a house, was authorized to do so (the case Illinois v. Rodrigues, 1990);when the police officers obtained evidence, relying on mistakes of other police officers, and these â€Å"errors were merely negligent and isolated and not systematic, recurring and deliberate† (the case Herring v. United States, 1990);when the police officered conducted a search based on legal precedent established by the court (the case Davis v. United States, 2011) (Hensley Snook, 2007; Bast et al., 2010).Inevitable discovery ruleInevitable discovery rule is the exception to the Exclusionary Rule that permits the admission of evidence obtained the police if the police officers can prove that they would inevitably have discovered the evidence anyway by lawful means (Hemmens et al., 2009). In other words, â€Å"this rule holds that the evidence obtained through unlawful search or seizure is admissible in court if it can be established to a very high degree of probability, that police investigation would be expected to lead to the discovery of the evidence† (Siegel, 2009, p. 345). The case Nix v. Williams (1984) is based on the application of the inevitable discovery rule.Conclusion  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Thus, it is necessary to conclude that the Exclusionary Rule is an important constitutional development that is aimed at discouraging law enforcement personnel from being engaged in misconduct. In other word, the Exclusionary Rule is effective in preventing the admission into evidence obtained by police officers unconstitutionally. Generally speaking, the Exclusionary Rule is justified because it helps to deter illegal s earches and seizures.

The Development of Canals in the Industrial Revolution

The Development of Canals in the Industrial Revolution Water was an important method of transport in Britain prior to the industrial revolution  and was used heavily for freight. Basically, to have a working economy things had to be moved from the place of production to the place of need, and vice versa, and when travel was based on horses, no matter how good the road, there were limits on products, in terms of freshness or quantity. Water, which could take more, and faster, was crucial. There were three key aspects of water borne trade: the sea, the coast, and rivers. Sea Carriage: Overseas trade required large ships and was important for importing and exporting goods and raw materials. Several key British ports, including the hub of the nation in London, had been growing on trade even before the boom of the revolution, and many traders had built public buildings. As the revolution got underway and Britain experienced an export boom in the late eighteenth century, wealth was reinvested in refurbishing ports, and they expanded greatly.Coastal Trade: Moving heavy goods at sea along the coast of Britain was much cheaper than moving the same items along the road network, and coastal trade was a key aspect of Britain’s economy. Between 1650 and 1750, i.e. before the industrial revolution, half a million metric tons of coal was moved this way from Newcastle in the north to London in the south. Foodstuffs could be moved fairly quickly through coastal trade, and it helped provincial trade. The east coast, with a sheltered, smooth sea, had the great est use, and most early industries like iron, tin, and grain depended on this method. Navigable Rives: Britain made major use of its river network for transport as well as waterwheel energy, but there were problems. Rivers didn’t always- or rarely- went where you wanted your goods to go, and they were affected by drought and erosion, as well as other industries being in the way. Many were simply unnavigable. People had tried to improve the river network by dredging, widening, and cutting past meanders by the start of the eighteenth century, and canals became the logical next step. Indeed, it was river improvements that gave the engineers of the canals their start. However, lots of important industrial areas in Britain, such as Birmingham, didn’t have any water links and were held back. If there wasnt a river, and you werent on the coast, you had transport problems. The solution was to be found in canals, a man-made route in which you could (mostly) direct the route. Expensive, but if done right, a way of making large profits. The Solution: Canals The first British canal to follow a totally new route (the first British canal was the Sankey Brooke Navigation, but this followed a river) was the Bridgewater canal from collieries in Worsley to Manchester and was opened in 1761 by the colliery’s owner, the Duke of Bridgewater. This reduced the Duke’s transport costs by fifty percent, vastly cheapening his coal and opening up a whole new market. This showed to the rest of Britain’s industrialists what canals could achieve, and it also demonstrated both what engineering could do, and what wide-ranging enterprise could create: the Duke’s money had come from agriculture. By 1774 over thirty-three government acts had been passed providing for canals, all in the Midlands where there were no comparative or realistic alternative means of water transport, and a boom continued. Canals became the perfect answer to regional needs, as you could design their path. The Economic Impact of Canals Canals allowed a greater volume of goods to be moved more precisely, and for much less, opening up new markets in terms of location and affordability. Seaports could now be connected to inland trade. Canals allowed for the greater exploitation of coal reserves as the coal could be moved further, and sold cheaper, allowing a new market to form. Industries could now relocate to coalfields or move to towns, and the materials and products could be moved either way. Of over 150 canal acts from 1760 to 1800, 90 were for coal purposes. At the time- before the railways- only canals could have coped with the swiftly rising demand for coal from industries like iron. Perhaps the most visible economic effect of canals was around Birmingham, which was now joined to the British freight transport system and grew hugely as a result. Canals stimulated new ways of raising capital, as the majority of canals were built as joint stock companies, with each company having to apply for an act of Parliament. Once created, they could sell shares and buy land, bringing in widespread investment, not just local. Only a tenth of the funding came from the elite of wealthy industrialists, and the first modern company management structures were put in place. Capital began to flow around the constructions. Civil engineering also advanced, and this would be fully exploited by the railways. The Social Impact of Canals The creation of canals created a new, paid, labor force called ‘Navvies’ (short for Navigators), increasing spending power at a time when industry needed markets, and each canal needed people to load and unload. However, people tended to fear navvies, accusing them of taking local jobs. Indirectly, there were also new opportunities in mining, hardware, and other industries, for instance, the potteries, as markets for goods opened right up. The Problems of Canals Canals still had their problems. Not all areas were suitable for them, and places like Newcastle had relatively few. There was no central planning and the canals weren’t part of an organized national network, coming in different widths and depths, and were largely limited to the Midlands and North West of England. Canal transport could be expensive, as some companies monopolized areas and charged high tolls, and competition from rival companies could cause two canals to be built along the same route. They were also slow, so things had to be ordered well in advance, and they could not make passenger travel cost effective. The Decline of the Canals Canal companies never solved the problems of speed, making the invention of a faster method of transport almost inevitable. When the railways were introduced in the 1830s people felt that the advancement would spell the immediate end of the canals as a major network for freight. However, canals continued to remain competitive for a number of years and it wasn’t until the 1850s that railways really replaced the canals as the primary method of transport in Britain.