The Exclusionary Rule
Based upon the exclusionary rule, term papers show that evidence which is acquired from an unreasonable search and seizure is considered to be tainted. Therefore, it can be prohibited from being used at trial against the person who was searched. This means that genuine evidence cannot be used to convict a person if it has been obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
It has been suggested by some that the exclusionary rule regarding searches and seizures is simply inappropriate. In fact, there are clearly more effective ways than the exclusionary rule to deter police officers from illegally obtaining evidence. For example, as written in the book Federal Jurisdiction by Erwin Chemerinsky, any police officer acting under “color of state law” who violates a person's Fourth Amendment rights is subject to a suit for damages and other remedies under a civil rights statute in federal courts. Another possibility is to professionally ‘punish’ police officers that conduct illegal searches and seizures by docking their pay or limiting advancement opportunities.
Therefore, the exclusionary rule in beneficial to society because it, theoretically, prevents overzealous police officers from entering and searching any premises that they may choose. However, because of the exclusionary rule, a court may disregard legitimate incriminating evidence, simply because of the way it was obtained.