# Do you support the exclusionary rule, that evidence obtained without warrants can't be introduced ?
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-support-the-exclusionary-rule-that-evidence-obtained-without-warrants-cant-be-introduced/511515
**Category:** In My Humble Opinion
**Created:** [September 25, 2009, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-support-the-exclusionary-rule-that-evidence-obtained-without-warrants-cant-be-introduced/511515 "2009-09-25T14:20:05Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@Brainiac](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brainiac)
#### Post date: [September 25, 2009, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-support-the-exclusionary-rule-that-evidence-obtained-without-warrants-cant-be-introduced/511515/1 "2009-09-25T14:20:05Z")
…
---
### Author:  [@Doctor\_Who](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Doctor_Who)
#### Post date: [September 25, 2009, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-support-the-exclusionary-rule-that-evidence-obtained-without-warrants-cant-be-introduced/511515/2 "2009-09-25T14:27:03Z")
I answered “Other” because, IMHO and with all due respect, that is an incorrect summation of the exclusionary rule.
---
### Author:  [@silenus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/silenus)
#### Post date: [September 25, 2009, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-support-the-exclusionary-rule-that-evidence-obtained-without-warrants-cant-be-introduced/511515/3 "2009-09-25T14:43:35Z")
What **Doctor Who** said. I support the exclusionary rule, and actually think it needs to be expanded some, but the summation in the OP is way off base.
---
### Author:  [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)
#### Post date: [September 25, 2009, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-support-the-exclusionary-rule-that-evidence-obtained-without-warrants-cant-be-introduced/511515/4 "2009-09-25T14:47:57Z")
Me too. i voted yes, because i support it. But I don’t buy into the language used in the OP.
---
### Author:  [@glee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/glee)
#### Post date: [September 25, 2009, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-support-the-exclusionary-rule-that-evidence-obtained-without-warrants-cant-be-introduced/511515/5 "2009-09-25T15:32:27Z")
Do you:
- support the exclusionary rule as defined in law?
- support the exclusionary rule defined by Brainiac?
- not support it?
---
### Author:  [@Chimera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chimera)
#### Post date: [September 25, 2009, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-support-the-exclusionary-rule-that-evidence-obtained-without-warrants-cant-be-introduced/511515/6 "2009-09-25T16:03:24Z")
Another vote for YES, but object to the language of the OP.
The purpose of the rule and the law is to enforce the Rule of Law, and to ensure that the agents of the law are also subject to that same rule of law. Otherwise they can freely break the law to gather evidence to be used against you, and you’ve got jack-all to say about it. At that point, the Rule of Law is meaningless, and we become a Police State, in which we are subject to whatever whims the police decide to use against us.
---
### Author:  [@Brainiac](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brainiac)
#### Post date: [September 25, 2009, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-support-the-exclusionary-rule-that-evidence-obtained-without-warrants-cant-be-introduced/511515/7 "2009-09-25T16:17:11Z")
> [@Procrustus](#):
>
> Me too. i voted yes, because i support it. But I don’t buy into the language used in the OP.
You had an option to vote other and explain. That’s the choice. If you don’t like the choice, make your own poll. I’m serious.
---
### Author:  [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)
#### Post date: [September 25, 2009, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-support-the-exclusionary-rule-that-evidence-obtained-without-warrants-cant-be-introduced/511515/8 "2009-09-25T16:21:02Z")
Other - It is a court’s job to determine truth, but it would be dangerous to let the police use immoral methods to collect evidence. It would be unfeasible to try and verify that the police had no ill motive when the evidence was discovered.
---
### Author:  [@NurseCarmen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NurseCarmen)
#### Post date: [September 25, 2009, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-support-the-exclusionary-rule-that-evidence-obtained-without-warrants-cant-be-introduced/511515/9 "2009-09-25T16:37:27Z")
> [@Brainiac](#):
>
> You had an option to vote other and explain. That’s the choice. If you don’t like the choice, make your own poll. I’m serious.
Do we have to use misleading or loaded questions? I’m serious, I don’t think people are ripping you, they are just questioning the quality of the poll. Don’t take it personally, take it as feedback. Sheesh.
---
### Author:  [@the\_first\_supraliminal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/the_first_supraliminal)
#### Post date: [September 25, 2009, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-support-the-exclusionary-rule-that-evidence-obtained-without-warrants-cant-be-introduced/511515/10 "2009-09-25T16:53:57Z")
> [@NurseCarmen](#):
>
> Do we have to use misleading or loaded questions? I’m serious, I don’t think people are ripping you, they are just questioning the quality of the poll. Don’t take it personally, take it as feedback. Sheesh.
I don’t think he was taking it personally. He said he was serious, why not accept that. But you are taking it very personally, so you should consider how your own emotions are projected on others.
Myself, when I’ve been on juries a couple of times, and discovered afterward that things had been excluded, felt something was wrong. I don’t mind punishing rogue cops, but letting violent people go seems to put the burden on society, not the rogue cops.
---
### Author:  [@Pleonast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pleonast)
#### Post date: [September 25, 2009, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-support-the-exclusionary-rule-that-evidence-obtained-without-warrants-cant-be-introduced/511515/11 "2009-09-25T18:01:11Z")
I voted other. The purpose of the courts is to determine the truth. All relevant evidence should be allowed. However, police obtaining evidence illegally is a gross abuse of state power. The individuals involved should be tried for felonies, and jailed and barred from state service if convicted.
---
### Author:  [@Never\_Say\_Dice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Never_Say_Dice)
#### Post date: [September 25, 2009, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-support-the-exclusionary-rule-that-evidence-obtained-without-warrants-cant-be-introduced/511515/12 "2009-09-25T18:08:24Z")
> [@NurseCarmen](#):
>
> Sheesh.
Don’t panic. There’s much more “guided” polling done on Great Debates all the time. That is probably where this thread should have been moved. I guess they are waiting for Curtis Lemay to stop his onslaught of polls first before they allow polls there LOL.
---
### Author:  [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)
#### Post date: [September 25, 2009, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-support-the-exclusionary-rule-that-evidence-obtained-without-warrants-cant-be-introduced/511515/13 "2009-09-25T18:23:02Z")
> [@the\_first\_supraliminal](#):
>
> Myself, when I’ve been on juries a couple of times, and discovered afterward that things had been excluded, felt something was wrong. I don’t mind punishing rogue cops, but letting violent people go seems to put the burden on society, not the rogue cops.
If a cop is willing to break the rules to make an illegal search, do we trust him not to break the rules to plant evidence on someone he “knows” is guilty?
---
### Author:  [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)
#### Post date: [September 25, 2009, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-support-the-exclusionary-rule-that-evidence-obtained-without-warrants-cant-be-introduced/511515/14 "2009-09-25T18:35:36Z")
I am not familiar with the exclusionary rule, but the way it was expressed in the OP would leave out cases of “evident crime.” So, if two people are trying to throttle each other in the street, the cops can’t do anything until they’ve obtained a warrant? That’s completely absurd, so I imagine that the exclusionary rule wouldn’t consider the evidence inappropriate in that case.
To the lawyers: would it be about “excluding evidence that has been obtained through inappropriate means”? (the exact definition of inappropriate varies by country)
---
### Author:  [@fusoya](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fusoya)
#### Post date: [September 25, 2009, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-support-the-exclusionary-rule-that-evidence-obtained-without-warrants-cant-be-introduced/511515/15 "2009-09-25T19:25:14Z")
Doesn’t every other Law & Order episode have this theme? I think this is one thing the American legal system does right. Without this law, the police/lawyers could just do whatever the hell they want in order to win. Even if someone is guilty, they should still have rights. Like lets say I kill my ex-girlfriend and bury her in my back yard. What’s to stop the police from coming over and digging up my yard just because they have a hunch? What’s to stop them from digging up the yard of everyone else who has ever known her? If evidence found without a warrant not only can’t get included in the case, but will actually DETER the chances of finding legal evidence, then there’s no motivation to try, and I get left alone.
---
### Author:  [@Superhal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superhal)
#### Post date: [September 26, 2009, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-support-the-exclusionary-rule-that-evidence-obtained-without-warrants-cant-be-introduced/511515/16 "2009-09-26T00:24:36Z")
Other: It is the duty of the courts to protect us from the government.
---
### Author:  [@Algher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Algher)
#### Post date: [September 26, 2009, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-support-the-exclusionary-rule-that-evidence-obtained-without-warrants-cant-be-introduced/511515/17 "2009-09-26T00:39:53Z")
Other. A (not THE) duty of the Court is to protect the Defendant from the power of the State. I don’t like that we need the exclusionary rules, but I do think that it is necessary to ensure that Justice is served. The rule is part of the concept of 100 guilty go free rather than imprison one innocent.
---
### Author:  [@RealityChuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RealityChuck)
#### Post date: [September 26, 2009, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-support-the-exclusionary-rule-that-evidence-obtained-without-warrants-cant-be-introduced/511515/18 "2009-09-26T01:08:51Z")
I chose Other. The purpose of the exclusionary rule is not to enforce anything. It’s to protect the rights of the person charged with a crime.
---
### Author:  [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qin_Shi_Huangdi)
#### Post date: [September 26, 2009, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-support-the-exclusionary-rule-that-evidence-obtained-without-warrants-cant-be-introduced/511515/19 "2009-09-26T03:32:41Z")
No courts as said should determine the hard solid facts whether it was obtained by formality or not.
---
### Author:  [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)
#### Post date: [September 26, 2009, 4:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-support-the-exclusionary-rule-that-evidence-obtained-without-warrants-cant-be-introduced/511515/20 "2009-09-26T04:08:08Z")
> [@Curtis LeMay](#):
>
> No courts as said should determine the hard solid facts whether it was obtained by formality or not.
Huh?
The whole point is to stop police abuse of power. Illegal search and seizure is a violation of your _Constitutional_ rights. Why would you willingly give that up?
For a (fairly) modern look at why it is there simply look at the main case that informs the rule today. Mapp v. Ohio.
> [@](#):
>
> When the Cleveland Police Department received an anonymous tip that Dollree Mapp and her daughter were harboring a suspected bombing fugitive, they immediately went to her house and demanded entrance. Mapp called her attorney and under his advice she refused to give them entry because they did not have a warrant. Several hours later, more officers came to her door and demanded that they be permitted to enter her house. After Mapp refused, they forcibly opened a door to the house and proceeded in. Mapp confronted them and demanded to see the search warrant. The police waved a piece of paper in the air (claiming it was the warrant) and Mapp grabbed it and put it down her shirt. The police eventually got the “warrant” back from Mapp. The officers then cuffed her feet and went on to search her entire house for the fugitive. When they reached her basement they found a suitcase with pencil drawings of pornographic images i.e. figures engaging in sexual intercourse.
>
> Mapp claims she was holding the trunk for a friend and was not aware of the contents inside.[1]
>
> The officers arrested Mapp for violating an Ohio law which prohibited the possession of obscene material. No fugitive or any evidence of one was ever found at the house.[1] At her trial in the Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga County. Mapp was convicted based on the evidence that was presented by the police. Mapp’s attorney questioned the police about the warrant but they could not show one.
>
> On appeal, the Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed. Mapp appealed further to the Supreme Court of Ohio. Her attorney argued that she should never have been brought to trial because the material evidence resulted from an illegal, warrantless search. The Court stated that the materials were admissible evidence and explained its ruling by differentiating between evidence that was peacefully taken from an inanimate object (the trunk) and forcibly taken from an individual. Based on this decision, Mapp’s appeal was denied and her conviction upheld. She then appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States.
>
> SOURCE: [Mapp v. Ohio - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mapp_v._Ohio)
Seems to me your opinion is she should have gone to jail…nevermind what the police did.
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-support-the-exclusionary-rule-that-evidence-obtained-without-warrants-cant-be-introduced/511515.md?page=2)