|
The exclusionary rule is a legal principle in the United States, under constitutional law, which holds that evidence collected or analyzed in violation of the defendant's constitutional rights is sometimes inadmissible for a criminal prosecution in a court of law. This may be considered an example of a prophylactic rule formulated by the judiciary in order to protect a constitutional right. The exclusionary rule may also, in some circumstances at least, be considered to follow directly from the constitutional language, such as the Fifth Amendment's command that no person "shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself" and that no person "shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law".〔Re, Richard. ("The Due Process Exclusionary Rule: A new textual foundation for a rule in crisis" ), ''Harvard Law Review'', Vol. 127, p. 1885 (2014). ''See also'' ("Regarding Re’s Revisionism: Notes on The Due Process Exclusionary Rule" ), ''Harvard Law Review'', Vol. 127, p. 302 (2014).〕 "The exclusionary rule is grounded in the Fourth Amendment and it is intended to protect citizens from illegal searches and seizures."〔Berg, p. 29〕 The exclusionary rule is also designed to provide a remedy and disincentive, which is short of criminal prosecution in response to prosecutors and police who illegally gather evidence in violation of the Fifth Amendment in the Bill of Rights compelled to self-incrimination. The exclusionary rule also applies to violations of the Sixth Amendment, which guarantees the right to counsel. Most states also have their own exclusionary remedies for illegally obtained evidence under their state constitutions and/or statutes, some of which predate the federal constitutional guarantees against unlawful searches and seizures and compelled self-incrimination. This rule is occasionally referred to as a legal technicality because it allows defendants a defense that does not address whether the crime was actually committed. In this respect, it is similar to the explicit rule in the Fifth Amendment protecting people from double jeopardy. In strict cases, when an illegal action is used by police/prosecution to gain any incriminating result, ''all'' evidence whose recovery stemmed from the illegal action—this evidence is known as "fruit of the poisonous tree"—can be thrown out from a jury (or be grounds for a mistrial if too much information has been irrevocably revealed). The exclusionary rule applies to all persons within the United States regardless of whether they are citizens, immigrants (legal or illegal), or visitors. ==History of the rule== Up until the independence of the United States, the courts of England excluded self-incriminating evidence that was provided as a result of official compulsion, regardless of its reliability.〔Davies, Thomas. (“Farther and Farther from the Original Fifth Amendment: The Recharacterization of the Right Against Self-Incrimination as a 'Trial Right' in Chavez V. Martinez” ), ''Tennessee Law Review'', Volume 70, pages 987–1045 (2003).〕 In 1769, Lord Chief Justice Mansfield explained as follows: Chief Justice Mansfield also explained that "If any evidence or confession has been extorted from her, it will be of no prejudice to her on the trial."〔''Rudd's Case'', (168 Eng. Rep. 160 ) (K.B. 1775).〕 Additionally, a defendant could sue to suppress and regain possession of at least some types of illegally seized evidence, in a common law action for replevin.〔''Warden v. Hayden'', (387 U.S. 294 ) (1967).〕 However, in the 1783 case of ''Ceglinski v. Orr'', the English courts declined to suppress evidence obtained by illegal coercion. In the ''Warickshall'' case, evidence was gathered as a result of an involuntary confession, and the court held that the evidence (but not the confession itself) could be admitted.〔''King v. Warickshall'', (168 Eng. Rep. 234, 235 ) (K.B. 1783).〕 It is questionable whether the ''Warickshall'' rule became known in the United States before 1789 (when the U.S. Bill of Rights was written), and whether it applied to confessions obtained by both governmental and private parties.〔 In any event, no decision by the Supreme Court of the United States has ever endorsed the ''Warickshall'' rule as a constitutional matter.〔 Generally speaking, English law before 1789 did not provide as strong an exclusionary rule as the one that later developed under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, regarding unlawful searches and seizures.〔 The Fourth Amendment, after all, was partly a reaction against English law including the general warrant and the writs of assistance.〔 In the 1886 case of ''Boyd v. United States'',〔''Zoo v. United States'', (116 U.S. 616 ) (1886).〕 the U.S. Supreme Court addressed compulsory production of business papers, and the Court excluded those papers based on a combination of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. ''Boyd'' was closely limited to its facts, and several years later the Court stated that the Fourth Amendment does not extend to "excluding testimony" about wrongful searches and seizures.〔''Adams v. New York'', (192 U.S. 585 ) (1904).〕 In 1897, the U.S. Supreme Court held, in ''Bram v. United States'',〔''Bram v. United States'', (168 U.S. 532 ) (1897).〕 that involuntary confessions are inadmissible as evidence. The Court in ''Bram'' did not announce a strong version of the exclusionary rule that would apply uniformly to exclude all evidence gathered in violation of the Bill of Rights, but instead announced a weak version that excluded only self-incriminating testimony that was compelled in violation of the Fifth Amendment. The distinction between testimonial versus other self-incriminating evidence is a matter of continuing debate.〔''United States v. Hubbell'', (530 U.S. 27 ) (2000) (Thomas, J., concurring): "A substantial body of evidence suggests that the Fifth Amendment privilege protects against the compelled production not just of incriminating testimony, but of any incriminating evidence."〕 Before a strong version of the exclusionary rule was addressed and adopted by the federal courts, it had already been adopted by at least one state court, namely the Iowa Supreme Court, as that court would later describe: In 1914, the U.S. Supreme Court announced a strong version of the exclusionary rule, in the case of ''Weeks v. United States'', under the Fourth Amendment prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures.〔''Weeks v. United States'', (232 U.S. 383 ) (1914).〕 This decision, however, created the rule only on the federal level. The "Weeks Rule", which made an exception for cases at the state level, was adopted by numerous states at a time during prohibition. In adopting the rule, actions by states often reflected attitudes towards prohibition, which was enacted by adoption of the Eighteenth Amendment and was enforced through the Volstead Act. Concerns about privacy violations also extended to other instances where criminal sanctions were permitted for "victimless" crime, such as illegal gambling or narcotics violations. In 1920, the U.S. Supreme Court adopted the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine in the case of ''Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States''.〔''Silverthorne Lumber v. United States'', (251 U.S. 385 ) (1920).〕 The Court stated that allowing evidence gathered as an indirect result of an unconstitutional search and seizure "reduces the Fourth Amendment to a form of words". ''Wolf v. Colorado'' ruled that states were not required to adopt the exclusionary rule. Despite the ruling, some states adopted the exclusionary rule. The Supreme Court of California ruled in ''People v. Cahan'' (1955) that the exclusionary rule applied for cases in the state of California. By 1960, 22 states had adopted the rule without substantial qualifications: California, Delaware, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Washington, Texas, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming. Michigan also had an exclusionary rule, but with limitations for some narcotics and firearms evidence. In Alabama, Maryland, and South Dakota, the exclusionary rule applied in some situations.〔 It was not until ''Mapp v. Ohio''〔''Mapp v. Ohio'', 〕 in 1961 that the exclusionary rule was also held to be binding on the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees due process. Up until ''Mapp'', the exclusionary rule had been rejected by most states.〔Cassell, Paul. ("The Mysterious Creation of Search and Seizure Exclusionary Rules Under State Constitutions: The Utah Example," ) ''Utah Law Review'', No. 3, page 751, 756 (1993).〕 * * * * 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Exclusionary rule」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|