What percentage of cases are dropped because of the exclusionary rule? (Points : 3) approximately 8% less than 10% more than 12% fewer than 2%

Question and answer

Q: What percentage of cases are dropped because of the exclusionary rule? (Points : 3) approximately 8% less than 10% more than 12% fewer than 2%

A: 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, . . . ] ]

Get an answer

Search for an answer or ask Weegy (Free)

Original conversation

User: What percentage of cases are dropped because of the exclusionary rule? (Points : 3) approximately 8% less than 10% more than 12% fewer than 2%

Weegy: 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, . . . ] ]
bluplemud|Points 60|

User: The U.S. Supreme Court has put which of the following limitations on 1983 actions? They can only be brought for negligent acts. They can only be brought against government bodies. They can only be brought against senior government administrators. They can only be brought for deliberate acts.

User: The exclusionary rule does not prevent prosecutors from using illegally seized evidence to impeach defendants' testimony. (Points : 2) True False

Weegy: b)False
BRAINSTORM|Points 3057|

User: For a right to be clearly established for purposes of defeating a claim of qualified immunity, the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what they are doing violates the right. (Points : 2) True False

Question

Asked 6/18/2012 4:05:53 PM

0 Answers/Comments

New answers

Rating

There are no new answers.

Comments

There are no comments.

Add an answer or comment