According to the rule, if a court finds that the search that has been undertaken by the police and other law enforcers, any evidence that is seized in whatever form cannot be used as evidence by state or federal courts to prosecute a defendant. While some courts and other parties have for some time supported the use and application of the exclusionary rule, it has up to now been criticized by various commentators in the field of law. According to critics, the rule allows the criminal to go unpunished thus increasing the number of crimes in the society.
However, on their part, the supporters of exclusionary rule indicates that by excluding the evidence that has been gotten in an illegal manner the police are deterred from making searches that are illegal. During the trial, Gant argued that the seizure was not called for and that the judge should suppress the cocaine and handgun evidence that was related to his motor vehicle. However, on his part the judge maintained that since the search was carried out during their normal duties and that Gant was arrested based on the warrant that has been issued by the court, the search was reasonable.
Thus, the judge denied the motion as given by Gant as the result, he was convicted. Being the democratic right of every individual to make an appeal in a higher court, Gant decided to appeal the ruling of the Arizona Supreme Court. The Arizona Court of Appeals made a reversal of the trial and termed the search as unconstitutional Arizona v. Gant, 129 S. Ct 1710 (2009). According to the court, law enforcers may undertake a search on any of the two key situations.
Firstly, if the individual arrested is within a reachable distance of his compartment at the time the search is being undertake. Secondly, a search can be undertaken if the car contains adequate evidence that calls for arrest. On the part of unconstitionalism of the search as indicated by the Arizona Court of Appeal, the Arizona Supreme Court also agreed. The Supreme Court supported the argument that there are various exceptions to the need of warrant. For example, the police must depict a high level of concern on the matters of safety or evidence.
In the case of Rodney Gant, the two exceptions were not present thus making the search not reasonable. In the same way, the Supreme Court indicated that since it was Gant desire to leave his vehicle, the officer safety and the need to need to preserve the evidence were not of great concern. According to the Supreme Court, the evidence therefore should have been collected before the warrant was issued by the court.
Please type your essay title, choose your document type, enter your email and we send you essay samples