Given the advent of good-faith exceptions to the exclusionary rule, the plain-view doctrine, and the U. S. Supreme Court's recognition of the need for emergency searches, can we realistically argue that the exclusionary rule is still effective in contemporary American criminal justice? Has the exclusionary rule been so watered down by recent decisions as to be little more than a paper tiger? Defend your position.

The exclusionary rule prevents the government from using most evidence gathered in violation of the United States Constitution.  The decision in Mapp v. Ohio established that the exclusionary rule applies to evidence gained from an unreasonable search or seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The decision in Miranda v. Arizona established that the exclusionary rule applies to improperly elicited self-incriminatory statements gathered in violation of the Fifth Amendment, and to evidence gained in situations where the government violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel.  However, the rule does not apply in civil cases, including deportation hearings. See INS v. Lopez-Mendoza.

answer: idk

explanation:

idk

idk

idk