• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Exclusionary Rule

How do you feel about the Exclusionary Rule?

  • Like it, people's privacy needs to be protected

    Votes: 8 66.7%
  • Don't Like it, police should be able to do their jobs

    Votes: 2 16.7%
  • Reform it (Explanation please)

    Votes: 2 16.7%

  • Total voters
    12

Hornburger

Active member
Joined
Jun 2, 2005
Messages
452
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
What do you think?
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Perhaps, if you explained what it is?
 

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,320
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I completely support it. If ill-gotten evidence were admissable in courts, the police would have little to no incentive to obey the Constitution.
 

Hornburger

Active member
Joined
Jun 2, 2005
Messages
452
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
steen said:
Perhaps, if you explained what it is?
Illegally seized evidence can not be used in a court of law. Check the Fourth Ammendment.

Kandahar said:
I completely support it. If ill-gotten evidence were admissable in courts, the police would have little to no incentive to obey the Constitution.
I'm undecided on the issue, but I'm going to play devil's advocate here.

If the police didn't obey the Constitution and such a rule, what rights would be violated? Your right to privacy. But its not like the police are going to come into your house everyday just to search it. What do people have got to hide?

If we change the constitution, then it WON'T be violating the Constitution. Remember-the Constitution is a living and changing document.
 
Last edited:

happykat

New member
Joined
Dec 1, 2005
Messages
44
Reaction score
0
Location
La-la Land
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
It makes me uncomfortable for the authorities to use evidence illegally obtained. I understand that often evidence that is not obtained through normal channels could be useful in putting criminals away, but we have to maintain a standard.
*shrug*
I'm on the fence.
 

Mikkel

Pragmatist
Joined
Jul 19, 2005
Messages
489
Reaction score
0
Location
Cleveland, OH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I voted yes, but I think there can be a little room for reform. For instance in serious cases where evidence is applicable (murder, rape, etc.) and makes the difference between whether a guilty, violent criminal goes free or is incarcerated, I think evidence should be admissible even if gotten illegally. And whatever cop obtained the evidence illegaly would be reprimanded (suspension or something to that effect), in order to keep cops from ignoring the constitution completely.
 

Iriemon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
19,405
Reaction score
2,187
Location
Miami
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Hornburger said:
I'm undecided on the issue, but I'm going to play devil's advocate here.

If the police didn't obey the Constitution and such a rule, what rights would be violated? Your right to privacy. But its not like the police are going to come into your house everyday just to search it. What do people have got to hide?

If we change the constitution, then it WON'T be violating the Constitution. Remember-the Constitution is a living and changing document.
There is something unsettling to me about the concept of law enforcement having the right to barge into your house and ransack through your stuff whenver they feel like it. It is too easily an abused power.

The exclusionary rule was created because it was the only way to coerse compliance with the law. If there are not consequences, police have no reason to follow the law. If the evidence is allowed, the rules becomes toothless. If police can use evidence based on an illegal breaking in and searching of one's house, why would they bother with a subpoena?
 

happykat

New member
Joined
Dec 1, 2005
Messages
44
Reaction score
0
Location
La-la Land
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Iriemon said:
There is something unsettling to me about the concept of law enforcement having the right to barge into your house and ransack through your stuff whenver they feel like it. It is too easily an abused power.

The exclusionary rule was created because it was the only way to coerse compliance with the law. If there are not consequences, police have no reason to follow the law. If the evidence is allowed, the rules becomes toothless. If police can use evidence based on an illegal breaking in and searching of one's house, why would they bother with a subpoena?
Not that I'm leaning either way...........but what do you do when a police man goes to a man's house to tell him to quiet his dog and sees 13 children in cages with no clothes on through the window?
 

Mikkel

Pragmatist
Joined
Jul 19, 2005
Messages
489
Reaction score
0
Location
Cleveland, OH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
happykat said:
Not that I'm leaning either way...........but what do you do when a police man goes to a man's house to tell him to quiet his dog and sees 13 children in cages with no clothes on through the window?
I believe it is actually legal, if the cop can see these 'cages' from the doorway, for him to enter and investigate on probable cause. If he were to break into the man's house before finding these cages, then it gets sticky.
 

happykat

New member
Joined
Dec 1, 2005
Messages
44
Reaction score
0
Location
La-la Land
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I guess I'm too ignorant on the subject then. *shrug*
 

Hornburger

Active member
Joined
Jun 2, 2005
Messages
452
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Iriemon said:
There is something unsettling to me about the concept of law enforcement having the right to barge into your house and ransack through your stuff whenver they feel like it. It is too easily an abused power.

The exclusionary rule was created because it was the only way to coerse compliance with the law. If there are not consequences, police have no reason to follow the law. If the evidence is allowed, the rules becomes toothless. If police can use evidence based on an illegal breaking in and searching of one's house, why would they bother with a subpoena?
There would still be punishment...the police officer would either get reprimanded, suspended, or lose his job from the police department. But the evidence could still be used to convict the person...so yeah I agree with mikkel.
 

Scarecrow Akhbar

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
11,430
Reaction score
2,282
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Evidence is evidence. It should be admissible in court.

If the source of the evidence is an illegal act, either an illegal search or forced confession, or some other form of extortion or chicanery not allowed, then the perpetrators of that crime, the cops and prosecutors, should be punished and subjected to both criminal charges and civil litigation, facing both loss of employment and jail time, as warranted.

The problem with what I propose is of course enforcing it or proving it. Cops are some of the worst criminals out there, but they cover for each other.
 

Caine

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2005
Messages
23,344
Reaction score
7,210
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Mikkel said:
I believe it is actually legal, if the cop can see these 'cages' from the doorway, for him to enter and investigate on probable cause. If he were to break into the man's house before finding these cages, then it gets sticky.
This is true, as I learned it in one of my Criminal Justice classes.
 

Caine

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2005
Messages
23,344
Reaction score
7,210
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Being someone that is starting Police Academy in about a month.....

I have to say that I agree with the Exclusionary Rule in its current form.

There is no more important value for a Police Officer than integrity.

The abuse of power argument I read was a good one. Police are already abusing there power in many instances, and this would just be another way to do so.

Doing away with, or reforming this rule to allow Prosecutors to use illegally obtained evidence would discredit the integrity of all Police Departments everywhere, and thus losing Public trust of the Police. They would become more of an enemy than they already are to some groups and in certain cities.
 

Busta

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 18, 2005
Messages
1,135
Reaction score
0
Location
From somewhere, deep below the Earth...
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
There are many, many circomstances and details left out of this example of a police officer entering a home regarding a loud dog and seeing children in cages, to make a reasonable judgment of the matter. However, as long as said police officer was acting in "Good Faith" and/or "Implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing", then it's all good.

On the other hand, I recall an incident in California, a few years ago, where a search warrant was executed at an incorrect apartment within a complex. Despite the fact that the raid yielded the exposure of a meth. lab and a prostitution ring, all related charges were dropped and, you guessed it, the tenants sued and got a settlement from the local gov. because the search, itself, was unconstitutional. (violation of the 5th.)
 

Caine

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2005
Messages
23,344
Reaction score
7,210
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Busta said:
There are many, many circomstances and details left out of this example of a police officer entering a home regarding a loud dog and seeing children in cages, to make a reasonable judgment of the matter. However, as long as said police officer was acting in "Good Faith" and/or "Implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing", then it's all good.

On the other hand, I recall an incident in California, a few years ago, where a search warrant was executed at an incorrect apartment within a complex. Despite the fact that the raid yielded the exposure of a meth. lab and a prostitution ring, all related charges were dropped and, you guessed it, the tenants sued and got a settlement from the local gov. because the search, itself, was unconstitutional. (violation of the 5th.)
If they knew it was the wrong apartment, they shoudln't have entered.
If they found out it was the wrong apartment after entering, they had no right to file charges in the first place, and are just plain incompetant for not double checking to make sure they were at the right place.

The Police exist to serve and protect the people, not violate thier rights.

Now, as a person who hates drugs and drug manufacturers and users with a passion, I find it VERY unfortunate that the situation ended up like it did.
But, its no reason to take away more of our already diminishing privacy in this country.
 

libertarian_knight

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
997
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
happykat said:
Not that I'm leaning either way...........but what do you do when a police man goes to a man's house to tell him to quiet his dog and sees 13 children in cages with no clothes on through the window?
That's different, and actually I don't think the exclusionary rule would apply there, especially since the cop could see them through the window.

It would be more like, a cop came over to quite a dog, or check on noise, decided to snoop through the guys closed drawers, to find a pipe, possibly used for drugs and then bust in for drugs, and find a stolen necklace.

Or, is police plant evidence of one crime, and use that evidence to initiate a search that yeilds evidence of an actual crime. The police would have committed an illegal act, by planting evidence and falsifying warrants.

I mean, in this day and age, just about everyone is a crimminal under the law, not a felon, but you are all law breakers!

Granted, everyone wants to see real bad guys put away, but allowing the cops to behave like bad guys, just creates another group of bad guys normal people have to deal with. When cops are the bad guys, who will police the police?
 
Last edited:

Hornburger

Active member
Joined
Jun 2, 2005
Messages
452
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Caine said:
Being someone that is starting Police Academy in about a month.....

I have to say that I agree with the Exclusionary Rule in its current form.

There is no more important value for a Police Officer than integrity.

The abuse of power argument I read was a good one. Police are already abusing there power in many instances, and this would just be another way to do so.

Doing away with, or reforming this rule to allow Prosecutors to use illegally obtained evidence would discredit the integrity of all Police Departments everywhere, and thus losing Public trust of the Police. They would become more of an enemy than they already are to some groups and in certain cities.
Actually, most people do trust the police quite highly...and I think they'd feel safer from letting police actually do their jobs correctly. Who are we really protecting in America nowadays, the criminal or the hardworking American?

The Police exist to serve and protect the people, not violate thier rights.
Exactly! And prosecuting criminals and using evidence to put criminals in jail helps protect our right to safety!
 
Last edited:

Caine

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2005
Messages
23,344
Reaction score
7,210
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Hornburger said:
Actually, most people do trust the police quite highly...and I think they'd feel safer from letting police actually do their jobs correctly. Who are we really protecting in America nowadays, the criminal or the hardworking American?


Exactly! And prosecuting criminals and using evidence to put criminals in jail helps protect our right to safety!
Who are we protecting??? Everyone, the criminal AND the hardworking American.
I in no way condone the actions of my father (a convicted felon), BUT, I would hate to think that the police would refuse him services in an emergency just because he is a convicted felon.

Yes, prosecuring criminals and using evidence does protect our right to safety.
But when does one right outweight another?
 

libertarian_knight

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
997
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
happykat said:
Not that I'm leaning either way...........but what do you do when a police man goes to a man's house to tell him to quiet his dog and sees 13 children in cages with no clothes on through the window?
or, what if the cop, snuck in, chained an infant to a radiator, visable from the window, and used that as pretext to bust the guy from growing a pot plant?
 

Hornburger

Active member
Joined
Jun 2, 2005
Messages
452
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Caine said:
Who are we protecting??? Everyone, the criminal AND the hardworking American.
I in no way condone the actions of my father (a convicted felon), BUT, I would hate to think that the police would refuse him services in an emergency just because he is a convicted felon.
Not what I meant...but okay.

Yes, prosecuring criminals and using evidence does protect our right to safety.
But when does one right outweight another?
Well, I don't think this is taking it too far, because if the evidence is illegally obtained, the cop can still be prosecuted if found guilty...it's not like the cop won't go through any consequences. I think it would be too far when there wouldn't be any consequences for the cop.
 

Caine

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2005
Messages
23,344
Reaction score
7,210
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Hornburger said:
Not what I meant...but okay.


Well, I don't think this is taking it too far, because if the evidence is illegally obtained, the cop can still be prosecuted if found guilty...it's not like the cop won't go through any consequences. I think it would be too far when there wouldn't be any consequences for the cop.
Yes, but reforming the rule to allow for this will only make some law enforcers think they can get away with it more easily.
 

Hornburger

Active member
Joined
Jun 2, 2005
Messages
452
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Caine said:
Yes, but reforming the rule to allow for this will only make some law enforcers think they can get away with it more easily.
That may be true, and that's why police departments will have to lay down the hammer when dealing with officers who illegally seize evidence.
 

libertarian_knight

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
997
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Caine said:
Who are we protecting??? Everyone, the criminal AND the hardworking American.
I in no way condone the actions of my father (a convicted felon), BUT, I would hate to think that the police would refuse him services in an emergency just because he is a convicted felon.

Yes, prosecuring criminals and using evidence does protect our right to safety.
But when does one right outweight another?
Our right to safety? pbfft
 

Hornburger

Active member
Joined
Jun 2, 2005
Messages
452
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
libertarian_knight said:
Our right to safety? pbfft
What do you mean pbffft? That evidence could be crucial in the prosecution's ability to sentence a GUILTY criminal, someone who could, after release, continue doing such horrendous acts! You value your right not be bothered for a few minutes over your right to protect your life? I don't understand! Especially since the police officers can be prosecuted after illegally obtaining the evidence. Everybody wins!
 
Top Bottom