exclusionary rule

(redirected from exclusionary rules)
Also found in: Thesaurus, Legal.

exclusionary rule

n.
The rule, based upon the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution, that prevents the use of illegally seized evidence against a defendant in a criminal trial.
American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Copyright © 2016 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved.

exclu′sionary rule`


n.
a rule that forbids the introduction of illegally obtained evidence in a criminal trial.
[1955–60]
Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary, © 2010 K Dictionaries Ltd. Copyright 2005, 1997, 1991 by Random House, Inc. All rights reserved.
ThesaurusAntonymsRelated WordsSynonymsLegend:
Noun1.exclusionary rule - a rule that provides that otherwise admissible evidence cannot be used in a criminal trial if it was the result of illegal police conductexclusionary rule - a rule that provides that otherwise admissible evidence cannot be used in a criminal trial if it was the result of illegal police conduct
rule of evidence - (law) a rule of law whereby any alleged matter of fact that is submitted for investigation at a judicial trial is established or disproved
Based on WordNet 3.0, Farlex clipart collection. © 2003-2012 Princeton University, Farlex Inc.
Mentioned in ?
References in periodicals archive ?
I begin by outlining a set of traditional justifications for exclusionary rules. I then assess how the Grant framework incorporates these rationales, before critiquing the SCC's choice of principles for excluding evidence under subsection 24(2).
Culpability: Questioning the New Exclusionary Rules, 66 FLA.
While impeachment is a constitutional process, it is subject to certain constitutional limitations, such as the due process clause, the right against self-incrimination clause, the right to confront witnesses clause, and the exclusionary rules of
Modern exclusionary rules across a number of common-law and civil-law jurisdictions are converging towards a balancing approach.
Exclusionary rules in these contexts do not, strictly speaking, remedy the privacy, dignity, and security harms that the relevant constitutional provisions seek to prevent, but rather have been explained as vehicles for deterrence.
Rudolph Pearl, the public defender, responding to the Attorney General's complaints about the appellate court's exclusionary rule decisions, argued that "the practical root cause of the difficulties with the exclusionary rules is the lack of good faith on the part of the judiciary and law enforcement officers in enforcing the rules." (158) Pearl included judges in the problem, claiming that "a policeman learns that if he lies on the witness stand his testimony will be accepted by the judge." (159) In 1985, an article titled The System Covers Up for Police Perjurers was featured in major U.S.
The discussion in this paper revolves around the general nature of exclusionary rules' discerned by the judicial decisions viz: Mapp vs Ohio (1961) where by the discretionary behavior of the police is scrutinized in detail.
Economists argue that in order for policymaking to be effective, an inclusionary knowledge governance approach is needed to supersede the exclusionary nature of the existing intellectual property regime, and that such an approach requires policymakers to counteract the globally produced and corporate sponsored exclusionary rules and regulations.
The "feasibility" exception is one explicitly built in to many of the exclusionary rules, including Federal Rule of Evidence 407.
(87) Until Mapp overruled Wolf the states fashioned their own exclusionary rules and exceptions; some states justified the admission of evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment when law enforcement acted in good faith.
Under the current good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule, federal courts must also determine whether an officer relied upon local appellate precedent at the time of the search.
Federal law creates three primary legal remedies for Fourth Amendment violations: the exclusionary rule, civil damages against officers, and criminal prosecution.