Click on the following links. Please note these will open in a new window.

Learning Objectives

9-1:  Describe police responsibilities in terms of actions related to the 1^st Amendment.

9-2:  Discuss the effects the 2^nd Amendment has on police.

9-3:  Identify the necessary elements for police to conduct search and seizure under the 4^th Amendment.

9-4:  Describe the implications of the 5^th Amendment of police procedure.

9-5:  Define due process and it’s relation to policing and the 14^th Amendment.

9-6:  Explain the exclusionary rule as it applies to police procedure and evidence collection.

9-7:  Identity some of the legal issues associated with police use of force.

9-8:  Analyze some of the legal issues associated with the Patriot Act, Homeland Security, and terrorism.

Article 1
Ma, Yue (2012). The American Exclusionary Rule: Is There a Lesson to Learn from Others? International Criminal Justice Review, 22(3) 309-325. doi: 10.1177/1057567712457944

When the U.S. Supreme Court extended the application of the exclusionary rule in its landmark decision Mapp v. Ohio, it was leading the way in employing the exclusionary remedy as a means to protect people’s rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. The past 50 years have seen significant changes in the criminal justice landscape on the world scene. The exclusionary rule is no longer unique to American jurisprudence. The rule has been adopted by other Western countries as well. The American exclusionary rule, however, remains a unique rule in terms of its deterrence rationale and mandatory nature. No other countries have adopted a mandatory rule or rested the rule on its deterrent effect. This article discusses the operation of the exclusionary rule in four other countries and provides a comparative analysis of the American exclusionary rule. It analyzes the problems associated with the operation of a deterrence-based mandatory rule and explores the possibility of changing the American exclusionary rule from a mandatory to a discretionary rule. The analysis takes note especially two recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions that signal significant changes in the application of the exclusionary rule in the United States.

1. How does the exclusionary rule in the U.S. compare to its application elsewhere?
2. How does the author suggest enhancing application of the exclusionary rule?
3. What can be learned about cross-cultural comparisons of criminal justice systems and policies?