Keep in mind this is only a tiny snippet of what I drafted...........
When
evidence is obtained illegally, the law states that this evidence
cannot be used in a court hearing and against the suspect. This is
called The
Exclufnsionary Rule. In
the example of the stolen salt shaker, if the tip was anonymous, it
was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court that law enforcement no longer
have the authority to stop the suspect and search him/her for
evidence based on said tip. The evidence that may have been found
during this search can be excluded. Other examples of illegally
obtained evidence include neglecting to inform a suspect that he/she
is not obligated to answer any questions during interrogation. This
is also known as the Miranda Rights and they are important! They
state, in part, that you as a suspect have the right to “remain
silent” and the right to an attorney. Another example would be if
law enforcement obtained a search warrant but did not first give the
suspect the ability to consent to letting officers in. In other
words, if the police have a search warrant and break down the door
before giving you the option to let them in peacefully, any and all
evidence obtained will more than likely be excluded from trail
proceedings. This is also referred to as the “knock then enter”
rule. The
Exclusionary Rule (21)
was
a court made rule due in part because the federal courts saw
potential violations of the 4th
Amendment rights of citizens arrested and subsequently convicted
based on evidence that was illegally obtained and did not fall under
the guidelines of a warrant-less search and seizure.
There
is however a loophole to this rule. It is called the Good
Faith Exception (or
Doctrine). It basically allows evidence that was illegally gathered
to actually be included
in trial if law enforcement who gathered the evidence believe they
acted lawfully or in good faith. This happens when a warrant is
“defective” or “stale”...............
In
conclusion, the U.S. Constitution was created by forefathers who
wanted to “form a more perfect union” then that of our British
roots. They drafted the Constitution as way of preventing the newly
formed Government from being the majority and presenting itself as
above the law. James Madison feared both the abuse of power by
Government but also the abuse of power by the people being protected
by the Constitution. Lacking a crystal ball but possessing great
knowledge they knew the Constitution was an owners manual for the way
our nation was at the time and not for the way our nation would later
become. They set into motion the Amendments as way to potentially
answer the questions of the unknown. Many people of the time saw the
document as perfect and whole not needing amending.
James Jackson, representative from Georgia said:
"Our
Constitution, sir, is like a vessel just launched, and lying at the
wharf," Jackson said. "She is untried, you can hardly
discover any one of her properties. It is not known how she will
answer her helm, or lay her course; whether she will bear with safety
the precious freight to be deposited in her hold. But, in this state,
will the prudent merchant attempt alterations? Will he employ workmen
to tear off the planking and take asunder the frame?"
Meaning that no one person or people can fully know whether the
constitution did in fact need adjusting since it had not yet been
fully tested or used.
The Bill of Rights was Madison's aim to “amend” things that otherwise required no amendment. We know them our God given rights. They still outlined these rights, leaving no stone upturned....nothing to guess. By 1992 17 additional amendments were added. They ended slavery, outlined in what manner a President is elected and how long he can serve, gave voting rights to women as well as those of different race or religious freedoms, they made it so that no income tax could be avoided by anyone ( this is still hotly debated as seen in the recent campaigns of Gov Romney and President Obama), they outlined who would be in charge should the president become disabled, as seen with the assassination of JFK. It's important to note that amendments can be change in only two ways: Both the House and Senate may pass a proposed amendment, each by a two-thirds majority. The amendment must then be approved by three-quarters of the states. The other path -- never taken -- allows for two-thirds of the states to call a constitutional convention where amendments could be passed and then sent to the states for approval. * This is, I think, a way of making certain that amendments can not be changed to suit the emotional state of any one person or situation. Keeping the uniformity of the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson understood that he would not see the Constitution or the Bill of Rights utilized to their fullest extent. He later wrote to his friend James Madison:
"Some men look at Constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them, like the Ark of the Covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment. I knew that age well; I belonged to and labored with it."
Nothing is ever etched in stone, there is always room for improvement. I believe our forefathers not only recognized this reality but attempted to plan for it. I for one am very glad that the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights is prominent in my protection and that of my family and friends.