Lawyer have strong education background and are held to a higher stander than most of society. The fact that some judges and lawyer want to “take the back door” to violate yours and mines rights by banning the exclusionary rule is absolutely appalling. The exclusionary rule doesn’t just hinder the guilty from being prosecuted, it also protect the average Joe from having his constitutional rights violated. This is why I believe that the exclusionary rule should not be banned.

When you get arrested and charges are brought up in court; there are rule and guild line. In this arsenals of guild lines you have the exclusionary rule. The rules state that if evidence brought up is obtain illegally or has nothing thing to do with the case it can be excused. This is both, save time and guarantee a fair speedy trail. If the exclusionary rule was banned more cases would bear a resemblance to Boyd v. United States where seizure of “testimonial” evidence such as documents is used against you. …show more content…
States would be Georgia Court ruling that exclusionary rule does not apply to evidence that was unlawfully detained in a prior incident as it was not being used to prove the offense charged in the indictment. Two men facing charge for drug trafficking were stop three years prior in North Carolina for a normal traffic stop. During the search officer found a large amount of cash in a hidden compartment. The case was later demised but was brought up and allowed in court in an unrelated case in another state. The fact the lawyer brought it up speaks on the morality of his case. The fact that the judge allowed it isn’t surprising because it happen in the south but its ruling goes against stare decisis of the fourth amendment. Their reasoning was that the “applying the exclusionary rule to this case would not likely deter illegal searches in Georgia because the incident in question occurred in North