Exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule

Name:
Instructor:
Course:
Date:
Law
There are several instances when a court may refuse to enforce the Fourth Amendment by allowing evidence obtained illegally. The courts recognize two exclusionary rule exceptions in the circumstances surrounding evidence obtained by unconstitutional conduct: the attenuation principle and the independent source exception. One can also have a procedural due process claim if the state suspends their license. There are several factors that the court considers when determining whether a state followed due process in suspending someone’s license. This essay will describe two exceptions to the exclusionary rule and the factors one needs to show a state violated due process if they suspended their license.
The attenuation principle and independent source doctrine are two exceptions to the exclusionary rule. The attenuation principle allows evidence illegally obtained to be admissible if the link between the evidence and the unconstitutional police practice involved in gathering proof is adequately remote or attenuated. In criminal proceedings, the court looks at three things when determining if this exclusionary principle applies: the purpose and flagrancy of the official misconduct, temporal proximity, and prevailing circumstances. Generally, the shorter the period between the discovery of evidence and illegal conduct, the more likely the court will suppress evidence (Turner and Weigend). Moreover, the more flagrant the violation, the more likely the evidence will be suppressed to deter further unconstitutional conduct. The independent source doctrine is the second exception to the exclusionary rule. It allows evidence collected illegally to be admitted if similar evidence was obtained legally from activities unconnected with the initial illegality. According to the independent source doctrine, evidence obtained by law enforcement officers who sought ...