2. Reasons I am Against the
Legislation
• #1 Without this law, police will be seen as
acting unprofessionally!
– Police officers will not conduct illegal searches
and seizures
– Police officers will not be able to selfincriminate
3. • #2 The exclusionary rule punishes police
by making it more difficult to convict
criminals using illegally obtained evidence
– Officers who conduct illegal searches will be
punished
– Citizens rights will not be violated
4. • #3 The exclusionary rule protect innocent
people
– Police will not be able to conduct illegal
searches without facing consequences
5. • #4 The exclusionary rule is the most
effective way to protect people who are
wrongfully searched or whose rights are
violated
– If you have been wrongfully searched without
a warrant then the evidence used against you
will be admissible in court.
6. • #5 Citizens will not believe in the court if
convictions are based on evidence
obtained in violation of citizens right’s
– If you were violated and illegally searched
would you believe the courts if they held
evidence against you from that? I know I
wouldn’t.
7. • Anthony Bouza, former New York Police Department
Commander and retired Minneapolis Police Chief,
states, "Over the ensuing decades [after the Mapp decision], cops
learned to obtain warrants, secure evidence, and prepare cases. Arrests
that had been clouded by sloppiness, illegality, and recklessness were now
much tidier."
– Imagine living in a world where the police
were so unprofessional that they did not care
about Miranda rights, search warrants, or
protecting the fourth and fifth amendments?
8. Opposing Argument
• The ugly truth is that not everybody, even
those with a lot of power, do as they
should. We cannot just trust every single
police officer to do what he is supposed to
do. The exclusionary rule is benefiting us
to keep officers in check!
