I’m working on a criminal justice discussion question and need support to help me learn.

These are 2 different student posts you must respond to whether you agree or disagree with or any add ons.75 words each post.

1)An example of the exclusionary rule would be someone being charged with murder, later in the case confesses to the murder but the court finds that evidence and/or arrest was unconstitutional, the case will be dismissed, including the confession.

An alternative remedy to the exclusionary rule could be The Writ of Mandamus. The Writ of Mandamus is a judicial remedy in the form of an order from the supreme court or high courts to any inferior court, government or any other public authority to carry out a public duty entrusted upon them either by statute or by common law. The Writ of Mandamus can only be used in certain circumstances like public emergencies.

In some cases I can see using an alternative remedy. There are a lot of cases that are thrown out of court because evidence was not collected properly or arrests were not done properly. Even with a confession, the cases are not heard and dismissed.

In emergency cases and horrific cases the exclusionary rule should not be abolished. There should be a line defined between emergency and non emergency cases. There are times when evidence and so forth may not have been used properly but it does not mean the case should be dismissed.

2)The exclusionary rule is a defendants must valuable playing card. In some cases, not many, it’s a get out of jail free card. According to our text the “ exclusionary rule. It requires that evidence obtained in violation of the Constitution cannot be used in a criminal trial to prove guilt. This rule is not found anywhere in the wording of the Constitution—it was created by the Supreme Court.” (Workplace, J.L, 2018) I tend to be a critic of the exclusionary rule because I think it has minimal affect on how law enforcement search and seizure. Officers of the law are still very much still human beings who use their own bias to make decisions even if they were the best in their training. The good faith exception can come into play in certain scenarios. According to our text ” The good faith exception has been extended to other situations besides searches and seizures based on defective warrants. Typically, such cases arise where police reasonably rely on information later determined to be incorrect. For example, if a police officer acts in reasonable reliance on a statute that is later found to be unconstitutional, then the good faith exception will not apply (see Michigan v. DeFillippo, 443 U.S. 31 [1979]” ( Worrall, J.L, 2018) an officer just cannot go “hang ten” with no rhyme or reason. There have to be probable cause behind their doing.