Legal Dictionary of Pakistan

exclusionary rule

1. Evidence. Any rule that excludes or suppresses evidence that does not satisfy a minimum standard of probative value <despite many exceptions, hearsay has long been inadmissible under an exclusionary rule>. 2. Criminal procedure. A rule that excludes or suppresses evidence obtained in violation of an accused person's constitutional rights <in accordance with the exclusionary rule, the court did not admit the drugs into evidence because they had been obtained during a warrantless search of the defendant's home>. See FRUIT-OFTHE-POISONOUS-TREE DOCTRINE; GOOD-FAITH EXCEPTION. "The deterrence of unreasonable searches and seizures is a major purpose of the exclusionary rule .... But the rule serves other purposes as well. There is, for example, . . . 'the imperative of judicial integrity,' namely, that the courts do not become 'accomplices in willful disobedience of a Constitution they are sworn to uphold.' . . . A third purpose of the exclusionary rule . . . is that of 'assuring the people - all potential victims of unlawful government conduct - that the government would not profit from its lawless behavior, thus minimizing the risk of seriously undermining popular trust in the government.'" Wayne R. LaFave & Jerold H. Israel, Criminal Procedure § 3.1, at 107 (2d ed. 1992) (quoting Elkins u. United States, 364 U.S. 206, 80 S.Ct. 1437 (1960); United States u. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 94 S.Ct. 613 (1974) (dissent) "In the simplest of exclusionary rule cases, the challenged evidence is quite clearly 'direct' or 'primary' in its relationship to the prior arrest, search, interrogation, lineup or other identification procedure. Such is the case when that evidence is an identification occurring at the confrontation between suspect and victim or witness, a confession or admission made in response to questioning, or physical evidence obtained by search or arrest. Not infrequently, however, challenged evidence is 'secondary' or 'derivative' in character. This occurs when, for example, a confession is obtained after an illegal arrest, physical evidence is located after an illegally obtained confession, or an in-court identification is made following an illegally conducted pretrial identification. In these situations, it is necessary to determine whether the derivative evidence is 'tainted' by the prior constitutional or other violation." Wayne R. LaFave & Jerold H. Israel, Criminal Procedure § 9.3, at 471 (2d ed. 1992).