Question

Explain how the US Supreme Court related their reasoning for creating the Exclusionary Rule in Mapp v. Ohio to deciding the Good Faith exception in US v. Leon.

Answer 1

In Mapp v. Ohio, the US Supreme Court reasoned that evidence obtained through a violation of the Fourth Amendment would not be admissible in court, which created the Exclusionary Rule. This rule stated that evidence obtained through illegal searches and seizures was not admissible in court and would be excluded from the trial.

In US v. Leon, the Supreme Court created the Good Faith exception, which allowed evidence obtained through illegal searches and seizures to be admitted in court if the officers conducting the search relied in good faith on a search warrant that was issued by a judge but later found to be invalid. The Good Faith exception was created to ensure that officers conducting searches would not be punished for mistakes made by the court in issuing search warrants. The Supreme Court reasoned that if officers were punished for relying on the court's mistake, it would discourage them from enforcing the law, so the Good Faith exception was created to protect officers when they act in good faith.

Answer 2

The US Supreme Court created the Exclusionary Rule in Mapp v. Ohio to protect individuals' Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Court ruled that evidence obtained through an illegal search or seizure, in violation of the Constitution, is inadmissible in state criminal proceedings. The Court later decided in US v. Leon to create the Good Faith exception to the Exclusionary Rule, which allows evidence to be used if police officers acted in good faith based on a valid warrant that was later found to be defective, as long as the officers' reliance on the warrant was reasonable.

Step-by-step explanation:

The US Supreme Court created the Exclusionary Rule in Mapp v. Ohio to protect individuals' Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Court ruled that evidence obtained through an illegal search or seizure, in violation of the Constitution, is inadmissible in state criminal proceedings. This decision was based on the principle that illegally obtained evidence is like the 'fruit of the poisonous tree,' tainted and therefore cannot be used in court. The Court later decided in US v. Leon to create the Good Faith exception to the Exclusionary Rule, which allows evidence to be used if police officers acted in good faith based on a valid warrant that was later found to be defective, as long as the officers' reliance on the warrant was reasonable.