In the interest of public safety, the exclusionary rule should be abolished and instead, cops who violate search warrants or fail to use them should be punished.
I agree with this statement, I think that the exclusionary rule should be abolished because I think we should be more concerned about the safety of the people than whether the evidence was acquired constitutionally. If a police officer finds a piece of evidence that could send someone to jail I think it is more important that we protect the community than protecting persons rights. I think it goes against the very core values of American society to let a murderer back on the streets because evidence was excluded from trial due to the circumstances in which it was acquired. Police officers should use the correct procedures such as warrants however I think it would be morally wrong to let a killer go around the law because of a flaw in the system such as the exclusionary rule.
I disagree with Bridget although she makes a good argument. The exclusionary rule protects our 4th Amendment rights against illegal search and seizure and ensures that we do not use tainted evidence in the courtrooms. This is important so that officials do not abuse their power and search persons illegally. I believe the exclusionary rule represents the individualistic and free America that we live in today.
I agree with Bridget that we should be concerned with the safety of the people. However, it is unconstitutional for someone or their possesions to be searched without an appropriate amount of suspicion. The fourth amendment states that American citizens are protected from "unreasonable searches and seizures." I do not argue the fact that this amendment is flawed, however it is in the constitution and therefore must be followed by the court. From these conclusions, looking at the article about school lockers, it is true that the search of a student's locker, without reasonable suspicion, is in fact unconstitutional. This is assuming that the locker is the property of the student. If we look at the locker as the school's property and the students have been made aware that the school can search the lockers, then this search is constitutional. The fourth amendment may allow many criminals to go unnoticed, however it is a direct violation of privacy to search someone or their belongings unless there is suspicion surrounding that person. In conclusion, cops who violate or fail to use search warrants should be punished.
I also think the exclusionary rule should be abolished. The exclusionary rule allows evidence found without a warrant to be excluded from evidence in a trial. I agree with Bridget about this being an important public safety issue, and I do not think this small technicality comprises any of America's civil liberties, because if there is evidence found against an individual, does it really matter if there was probable cause or suspicion? If a critical piece of evidence in a trial was found by coincidence, that does not make the crime any less wrong. Also, I think police officers could be slightly penalized for infractions such as failing to obtain a warrant, it should not put their job at risk, because I believe that their service of public safety outweighs their disturbance to this clause. In reference to the student locker controversy, I believe that it should be constitutional to conduct searches because the students do not technically own the lockers- they are school property, provided to the student. And these students are minors, and searching their lockers for illegal substances will only help the condition of the school community. This may be considered intrusion upon privacy, but as long as no illegal substances are found, the contents found in these searches should remain confidential in light of the student's privacy.
I agree with Katrina and Bridget that the exclusionary rule should b e abolished. While in theory no police officer should search a person, car, or home without a vehicle, there are always exceptions. I also agree with Katrina's point that if a critical piece of evidence is found by coincidence, or not technically under a search warrant, as long as it is legitimate evidence it should be used. In cases where police officers blatantly violate the search and seizure amendment and either disrespect a person or search them based on unfair reasons and find nothing, then police should be punished.
As for whether searching students' lockers is a violation of privacy, I again agree with Katrina that it is constitutional to search a students' locker. When students decide to attend that school, they surrender that small amount of their right to privacy. Students should have nothing to hide, and if they do decide to hide something illegal in their lockers, they should know that they run the risk of getting caught and suffering the consequences.
In my opinion, the exclusionary rule should not be abolished. When it comes to public safety, it is sometimes inconvenient that evidence found without a search warrant cannot be used in trial, but the police know this before obtaining evidence. It is the police's responsibility to carry out the procedure properly by obtaining a warrant. To do otherwise directly violates the 4th Amendment. There are ways that police can obtain evidence without the need of a search warrant. Police often ask a suspect if they can search their person or properties first to try and avoid the need to obtain a warrant. If evidence is found during this search, it can be used because the person agreed to allow the police to search their belongings. Another example is if a police officer pulls a car over for speeding and upon going up to the driver sees or smells an illegal substance, he or she then has probable cause to search the vehicle. On the other hand, for a cop to pull someone over just because they look suspicious is a violation of the 4th Amendment. Over all, the exclusionary rule protects the rights of all Americans and to abolish it would involve taking away those rights.
Concerning the issue of school searches of student's lockers, the 4th Amendment is not violated. School lockers are property of the school, therefore the school has the right to search them. The point of the possible search is to deter students from bringing anything suspicious or illegal to school in the first place. Another idea brought up on the website was that of using metal detectors. I think this is also a good idea because it detects anything that can harm the school's population. Random locker searches could miss these weapons because not all lockers are searched, and an un-searched locker may have something dangerous within. A school has all of these rights because it is their job to protect their students and if they cannot prevent drug use or violence through searches, they are blamed for the outcome.
I agree with Nick on the idea that police will abuse their power of searching if there is not a constitutional restriction against it. Having the word "unreasonable" in the 4th amendment gives the citizens more protection against violation of searching, and ensures their basic rights as citizens will not be infringed upon. The exclusionary rule should in fact be abolished in an attempt to protect American rights furthermore, because it shows incentive to punish police for attempting to violate our rights. Right to privacy is a fundamental belief upon which our country was founded, and officials violating that was not something the founding fathers envisioned.
I agree with Nick when he says that violating the exclusionary rule should lead to policemen being punished. Unwarranted searches violate the privacy of citizens and are strictly forbidden by the Constitution. In certain cases, however, I believe it is necessary for it to be twisted. If there is clear evidence that a man or woman is guilty of a crime and the only thing that is keeping them out of prison is a warrant, the warrant could be bypassed. These people are a danger to the rest of America and having them still on the streets is a bigger problem then an unwarranted search. I would much rather a murderer who avoided searches in jail rather than allowing them to fix evidence before a warrant is given. Public safety in certain circumstances out weighs this Constitutional provision.
I agree with this statement, I think that the exclusionary rule should be abolished because I think we should be more concerned about the safety of the people than whether the evidence was acquired constitutionally. If a police officer finds a piece of evidence that could send someone to jail I think it is more important that we protect the community than protecting persons rights. I think it goes against the very core values of American society to let a murderer back on the streets because evidence was excluded from trial due to the circumstances in which it was acquired. Police officers should use the correct procedures such as warrants however I think it would be morally wrong to let a killer go around the law because of a flaw in the system such as the exclusionary rule.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with Bridget although she makes a good argument. The exclusionary rule protects our 4th Amendment rights against illegal search and seizure and ensures that we do not use tainted evidence in the courtrooms. This is important so that officials do not abuse their power and search persons illegally. I believe the exclusionary rule represents the individualistic and free America that we live in today.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Bridget that we should be concerned with the safety of the people. However, it is unconstitutional for someone or their possesions to be searched without an appropriate amount of suspicion.
ReplyDeleteThe fourth amendment states that American citizens are protected from "unreasonable searches and seizures." I do not argue the fact that this amendment is flawed, however it is in the constitution and therefore must be followed by the court.
From these conclusions, looking at the article about school lockers, it is true that the search of a student's locker, without reasonable suspicion, is in fact unconstitutional. This is assuming that the locker is the property of the student. If we look at the locker as the school's property and the students have been made aware that the school can search the lockers, then this search is constitutional.
The fourth amendment may allow many criminals to go unnoticed, however it is a direct violation of privacy to search someone or their belongings unless there is suspicion surrounding that person.
In conclusion, cops who violate or fail to use search warrants should be punished.
I also think the exclusionary rule should be abolished. The exclusionary rule allows evidence found without a warrant to be excluded from evidence in a trial. I agree with Bridget about this being an important public safety issue, and I do not think this small technicality comprises any of America's civil liberties, because if there is evidence found against an individual, does it really matter if there was probable cause or suspicion? If a critical piece of evidence in a trial was found by coincidence, that does not make the crime any less wrong. Also, I think police officers could be slightly penalized for infractions such as failing to obtain a warrant, it should not put their job at risk, because I believe that their service of public safety outweighs their disturbance to this clause.
ReplyDeleteIn reference to the student locker controversy, I believe that it should be constitutional to conduct searches because the students do not technically own the lockers- they are school property, provided to the student. And these students are minors, and searching their lockers for illegal substances will only help the condition of the school community. This may be considered intrusion upon privacy, but as long as no illegal substances are found, the contents found in these searches should remain confidential in light of the student's privacy.
I agree with Katrina and Bridget that the exclusionary rule should b e abolished. While in theory no police officer should search a person, car, or home without a vehicle, there are always exceptions. I also agree with Katrina's point that if a critical piece of evidence is found by coincidence, or not technically under a search warrant, as long as it is legitimate evidence it should be used. In cases where police officers blatantly violate the search and seizure amendment and either disrespect a person or search them based on unfair reasons and find nothing, then police should be punished.
ReplyDeleteAs for whether searching students' lockers is a violation of privacy, I again agree with Katrina that it is constitutional to search a students' locker. When students decide to attend that school, they surrender that small amount of their right to privacy. Students should have nothing to hide, and if they do decide to hide something illegal in their lockers, they should know that they run the risk of getting caught and suffering the consequences.
In my opinion, the exclusionary rule should not be abolished. When it comes to public safety, it is sometimes inconvenient that evidence found without a search warrant cannot be used in trial, but the police know this before obtaining evidence. It is the police's responsibility to carry out the procedure properly by obtaining a warrant. To do otherwise directly violates the 4th Amendment. There are ways that police can obtain evidence without the need of a search warrant. Police often ask a suspect if they can search their person or properties first to try and avoid the need to obtain a warrant. If evidence is found during this search, it can be used because the person agreed to allow the police to search their belongings. Another example is if a police officer pulls a car over for speeding and upon going up to the driver sees or smells an illegal substance, he or she then has probable cause to search the vehicle. On the other hand, for a cop to pull someone over just because they look suspicious is a violation of the 4th Amendment. Over all, the exclusionary rule protects the rights of all Americans and to abolish it would involve taking away those rights.
ReplyDeleteConcerning the issue of school searches of student's lockers, the 4th Amendment is not violated. School lockers are property of the school, therefore the school has the right to search them. The point of the possible search is to deter students from bringing anything suspicious or illegal to school in the first place. Another idea brought up on the website was that of using metal detectors. I think this is also a good idea because it detects anything that can harm the school's population. Random locker searches could miss these weapons because not all lockers are searched, and an un-searched locker may have something dangerous within. A school has all of these rights because it is their job to protect their students and if they cannot prevent drug use or violence through searches, they are blamed for the outcome.
I agree with Nick on the idea that police will abuse their power of searching if there is not a constitutional restriction against it. Having the word "unreasonable" in the 4th amendment gives the citizens more protection against violation of searching, and ensures their basic rights as citizens will not be infringed upon. The exclusionary rule should in fact be abolished in an attempt to protect American rights furthermore, because it shows incentive to punish police for attempting to violate our rights. Right to privacy is a fundamental belief upon which our country was founded, and officials violating that was not something the founding fathers envisioned.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Nick when he says that violating the exclusionary rule should lead to policemen being punished. Unwarranted searches violate the privacy of citizens and are strictly forbidden by the Constitution. In certain cases, however, I believe it is necessary for it to be twisted. If there is clear evidence that a man or woman is guilty of a crime and the only thing that is keeping them out of prison is a warrant, the warrant could be bypassed. These people are a danger to the rest of America and having them still on the streets is a bigger problem then an unwarranted search. I would much rather a murderer who avoided searches in jail rather than allowing them to fix evidence before a warrant is given. Public safety in certain circumstances out weighs this Constitutional provision.
ReplyDelete