Search and Seizure & the Exclusionary Rule

Solution Preview

Let's look at both sides of the debate, which will help you position yourself for your final argument. I also attached a highly informative resource with several people debating the topic.

1. Debate the following statement: The United States Supreme Court recently held that if police fail to knock and announce then whatever evidence they seize will not be subject to the exclusionary rule. Does that mean police no longer need to knock and announce before entering a dwelling?

This is a topic that has been debated and is still being debated to date. There is no consensus and it depends on the situation and the judge. According to Lynch (n.d), much of the modern debate about the enforcement of the Fourth Amendment has focused on the wisdom of and constitutional necessity for the so-called exclusionary rule, under which evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment is ordinarily inadmissible in a criminal trial. Conservatives often oppose the rule as not grounded in the Constitution, not a deterrent to police misconduct, and not helpful in the search for truth. Abolishing the exclusionary rule has been a high priority for conservatives for more than 30 years. When Republicans gained control of Congress in 1995, they immediately set their sights on the exclusionary rule. Although that "reform" effort did not succeed, Lynch points out that it is likely that similar efforts may resurface.

Although some judges rule that evidence is still permissible in some cases when police fail to knock and announce, it does not mean, however, that in all cases police no longer need to 'knock and announce' before entering a dwelling in seize and searches. Many argue, however, many argue that it exactly how it is today, because many judges rule that the evidence is not subject to the ...