Question and answer
What percentage of cases are dropped because of the exclusionary rule? (Points : 3) approximately 8% less than 10% more than 12% fewer than 2%
The primary purpose of the Exclusionary Rule "is to deter future unlawful police conduct and thereby effectuate the guarantee of the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures." (United States v. Calandra (1974) 414 U.S. [ [ 338 [38 L.Ed.2nd 561]; Illinois v. Krull (1987) 480 U.S. 340 [94 L.Ed.2nd 364]; People v. Robles (2000) 23 Cal.4th 789, 799.) "?[T]he "prime purpose" of
the [exclusionary] rule, if not the sole one, "is to deter future unlawful police conduct." [Citations]' (Citations)" (Italics added; People v. Sanders (2003) 31 Cal.4th 318, 324.) It is also the purpose of the Fourth Amendment to "safeguard the privacy and security of individuals against arbitrary invasions by government officials." (Camera v. Municipal Court (1967) 387 U.S. 523, 528 [18 L.Ed.2nd 930, 935].) An otherwise lawful seizure can violate the Fourth Amendment if it is executed in an unreasonable manner. (United States v. Alverez-Tejeda (9th Cir. 2007, citing United States v. Jacobsen (1984) 466 U.S. 109, 124 [80 L.Ed.2d 85].) Evidence illegally obtained by private persons, acting in a private capacity, is not subject to the Exclusionary Rule. (See Krauss v. Superior Court (1971) 5 Cal.3rd 418, 421; People v. North (1981) 29 Cal.3rd 509, 514; Jones v. Kmart Corp. (1998) 17 Cal.App.4th 329, 332.) Even a peace officer, when off-duty and acting in a private capacity, may be found to have acted as a private citizen. (See People v. Wachter (1976) 58 Cal.App.3rd 911, 920, 922.) However, the Exclusionary Rule is not intended to prevent all police misconduct or as a remedy for all police errors. "The use of the exclusionary rule is an exceptional remedy typically reserved for violations of constitutional rights." (United States v. Smith (9th Cir. 1999) 196 F.3rd 1034, 1040.) Not all courts are in agreement that such a remedy is reserved exclusively for constitutional violations. (See discussion in United States v. Lombera-Camorlinga (9th Cir. 2000) 206 F.3rd 882, 886-887, and in the dissenting opinion, p. 893.) A civil rights "action under (42 U.S.C.) section 1983 "encompasses violations of federal statutory law as well as constitutional law." (Maine v. Thiboutot (1980) 448 U.S. 1, 4, . . . ] ]
Expert answered|bluplemud|Points 60|
Question
Asked 6/18/2012 3:58:14 PM
0 Answers/Comments
Get an answer
New answers
Rating

There are no new answers.

Comments

There are no comments.

Add an answer or comment
Log in or sign up first.
Questions asked by the same visitor
18,459,295 questions answered
Popular Conversations
In the poem "God's Grandeur," the phrase "nor can foot feel, being ...
Weegy: In the poem "God's Grandeur," the phrase "nor can foot feel, being shod" means: humans are out of touch with ...
11/27/2014 12:04:03 AM| 1 Answers
Weegy Stuff
S
L
1
L
P
C
1
P
C
1
L
P
C
1
Points 2939 [Total 14649]| Ratings 11| Comments 2829| Invitations 0|Offline
S
L
Points 1472 [Total 3758]| Ratings 0| Comments 1472| Invitations 0|Offline
S
Points 847 [Total 879]| Ratings 1| Comments 837| Invitations 0|Offline
S
1
L
1
L
P
P
L
P
Points 784 [Total 14158]| Ratings 0| Comments 784| Invitations 0|Offline
S
L
Points 777 [Total 1298]| Ratings 6| Comments 717| Invitations 0|Offline
S
1
L
L
Points 273 [Total 6667]| Ratings 0| Comments 273| Invitations 0|Offline
S
L
Points 163 [Total 1459]| Ratings 3| Comments 133| Invitations 0|Offline
S
Points 109 [Total 109]| Ratings 1| Comments 99| Invitations 0|Online
S
Points 50 [Total 50]| Ratings 0| Comments 0| Invitations 5|Offline
S
Points 46 [Total 46]| Ratings 3| Comments 6| Invitations 1|Offline
Home | Contact | Blog | About | Terms | Privacy | Social | ©2014 Purple Inc.