Exclusionary rule

In the law of the United States, the principle of seizure by the police of evidence that violates Article 4 amendment of the Constitution of the United States shall not be used for a criminal defendant in a trial.

Article 4 of amendment will not guarantee unjust searching and seizure. In other words, there is no arrest warrant signed by the judge. The United States Supreme Court, Wolff v. Colorado (1949) stated, "Personal privacy can prevent arbitrary invasion by police - this is the core of the fourth revision - the foundation of a free society." It did not reach the state courts. In the next decade, about half of the states adopted this rule. Later, the Supreme Court, Mapp v. In the case of Ohio (1961) stated that this rule must be universally applicable to all criminal proceedings.

In the case of the US v. Leon (1984), the Supreme Court judged that evidence gained in good faith and the subsequent search warrant that it is invalid will be acceptable. The central argument is to eliminate the unacceptable social costs of such evidence, which is why exceptions to subsequent rules were developed.

This case is related to exclusion rules. This rule basically prohibits the use of evidence of illegal seizure in court. It is noteworthy that the fourth amendment does not explicitly exclude exclusion rules. The rules of the fourth amendment apply only to federal police and not to state police. The wolf was convicted of abortion. Evidence for him was found in a license-free search. The Supreme Court ruled that the evidence that was not found without an appropriate warrant violated legitimate procedures

The first part gives an overview of federal and state exclusivity rules. Different constitutions may not require exclusion of evidence, but federal and state monopoly rules are rooted in the constitution 27. Because of this relationship, it is meaningless to apply the country's exclusive rules to violate the Constitution of another country. . In Part 2 we briefly explain the theoretical and judicial insights gathered in the last century as the Constitutional Restrictions due to the Court's Approach and the field of Contradiction have evolved. State courts are usually free to participate in the development of common restrictions with little constraints to design unique ways to solve these incidents. The resulting different theoretical experiments reveal several principles that should lead to the development of new theories. Perhaps most importantly, the court should adopt rules sensitive to the content and scope of the law being applied.

Competition exclusion rule in multistate survey: resolution of conflict between nationwide investigation and seizure law