Question 1

The exclusionary rule is a legal principle in which the introduction of criminal evidence collected or analyzed in violation of the Constitution is permitted.

Accepted Answer

The exclusionary rule is a legal principle that prohibits the introduction of evidence collected or analyzed in violation of the defendant's constitutional rights.

Question 2

The exclusionary rule is grounded in the United States Constitution.

Accepted Answer

The exclusionary rule is a judicially created principle, not explicitly mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but derived from the Fourth Amendment's protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Question 3

The 1914 case of Weeks v. U.S. the Supreme Court created a law which excluded any evidence that had been collected in violation of the statute or procedure.

Accepted Answer

The 1914 case of Weeks v. U.S. established the "exclusionary rule," which prevents evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment from being used in federal court.

Question 4

The silver platter doctrine allows state authorities to serve up illegally obtained evidence to federal agents.

Accepted Answer

The silver platter doctrine historically allowed state law enforcement officers to transfer evidence obtained through methods that violated the defendant's constitutional rights to federal officers for use in federal prosecutions, effectively bypassing the exclusionary rule that would normally prevent such evidence from being admissible in court. However, this doctrine was overturned by the Supreme Court in the case of Elkins v. United States (1960).

Question 5

The Supreme Court applied the Fourth Amendment to the states via the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment in the 1949 case Wolf v. Colorado; it required the implementation of the exclusionary rule.

Accepted Answer

While the Supreme Court in Wolf v. Colorado (1949) did apply the Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, it did not require the implementation of the exclusionary rule at that time. The exclusionary rule was later applied to the states in Mapp v. Ohio (1961).

Question 6

In Rochin v. California, the Court considered whether evidence of narcotics, which had been obtained through the involuntary stomach pumping of the defendant, should be admissible.

Accepted Answer

In Rochin v. California (1952), the U.S. Supreme Court held that evidence obtained by forcibly pumping the stomach of the defendant was inadmissible because it violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, marking the procedure as too invasive and a violation of fundamental fairness and principles of justice.

Question 7

Application of the exclusionary rule by the states was mandated in Fahy v. Connecticut.

Accepted Answer

The application of the exclusionary rule by the states was mandated in Mapp v. Ohio (1961), not Fahy v. Connecticut. Mapp v. Ohio extended the exclusionary rule, which prohibits the use of illegally obtained evidence in court, to the states.

Question 8

A variety of exceptions to the exclusionary rule have been enacted since its inception. The first of these was actually considered in Wong Sun and was a direct result of the poisonous fruit doctrine.

Accepted Answer

The Wong Sun v. United States case introduced the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine, which allows for exceptions to the exclusionary rule, such as evidence not directly obtained from the illegal search or seizure but discovered as a result of it.

Question 9

The attenuation or purged taint exception evaluates whether the causal connection between the illegal action and the seizure of evidence is sufficiently attenuated.

Accepted Answer

The attenuation or purged taint exception is a legal principle that evaluates whether the connection between an illegal action (such as an unlawful stop or search) and the discovery of evidence is sufficiently weakened or interrupted. If the connection is deemed attenuated, the evidence may still be admissible in court despite the initial illegality.

Question 10

The good faith exception argues that the exclusionary rule was designed to deter police misconduct rather that to punish the errors of judges and magistrates.

Accepted Answer

The good faith exception to the exclusionary rule allows evidence collected in violation of privacy rights to be admitted in court if police officers were acting on a defective search warrant they believed to be valid, thus focusing on deterring police misconduct rather than penalizing judicial errors.

Question 11

The Court has consistently ruled that information or evidence gathered by the police who are acting in good faith on a warrant later found to be defective may not be introduced at trial.

Accepted Answer

The Supreme Court has established the "good faith exception" to the exclusionary rule, allowing evidence gathered on a defective warrant to be admitted at trial if the police were acting in good faith, believing the warrant to be valid.

Question 12

Like the "good faith" exception to the exclusionary rule, the Court has found that information or evidence, which is collected independently of the illegal police action, is not admissible.

Accepted Answer

The Court has found that information or evidence collected independently of the illegal police action is admissible under the "independent source doctrine," which allows evidence to be admitted if it was obtained from a separate, independent source that is untainted by the illegal police action.

Question 13

In the United States v. Pervaz, the Court evaluated the admissibility of information gathered by a cellular telephone company after being alerted by authorities that they were being victimized.

Accepted Answer

The case involved the court assessing whether the information collected by the cellular company, after being notified by authorities of potential victimization, could be admitted as evidence.

Question 14

Evidence seized in an unlawful manner may also be admissible if the defendant lacks the legal standing to move to suppress it.

Accepted Answer

Evidence obtained unlawfully may still be admissible if the defendant does not have the legal standing to challenge its inclusion, meaning they cannot demonstrate a personal, reasonable expectation of privacy in the area searched or the items seized.

Question 15

The exclusionary rule also applies to civil cases

Accepted Answer

The exclusionary rule, which prevents the government from using evidence gathered in violation of the United States Constitution, primarily applies to criminal cases and not civil cases.

Question 16

The _____________ rule is a legal principle in which the introduction of criminal evidence collected or analyzed in violation of the Constitution is forbidden.

Accepted Answer

The answer of The _____________ rule is a legal principle...

Question 17

As stated, the exclusionary rule is one of the most controversial legal issues in criminal justice. Unlike other such rules, it is not grounded in the United States Constitution, but is simply a judicial remedy for violations involving the _________ Amendment.

Accepted Answer

The answer of As stated, the exclusionary rule is one...

Question 18

The silver platter doctrine allowed state authorities to serve up ____________ obtained evidence to federal agents.

Accepted Answer

The answer of The silver platter doctrine allowed state authorities...

Question 19

Application of the exclusionary rule by the states was mandated in _____________ v. Ohio.

Accepted Answer

The answer of Application of the exclusionary rule by the...

Question 20

The ________________ evidence rule is applicable in a variety of situations, including, but not limited to, the suppression of evidence in the following areas: additional evidence that would not have been discovered; witnesses who might have remained unknown; and, confessions or admissions made under the presentment of illegally obtained evidence.

Accepted Answer

The answer of The ________________ evidence rule is applicable in...

Quiz 5: The Exclusionary Rule and the Fourth Amendment