Overview
A TWO-PART DISCUSSION: RESPOND TO A CLASSMATE
Discuss whether or not the Fourth Amendment Exclusionary Rule should be further strengthened, weakened, or abandoned?
INSTRUCTIONS:
1. PART 1: Discuss what you think about the Fourth Amendment's Exclusionary Rule, as stated above. Your arguments must be supported by facts.
2. PART 2: Then read ONLY ONE POSTING by one of your classmates on the Exclusionary Rule and critically respond to it. Discuss whether you agree or disagree and support your position with some facts.
NOTE: READ CHAPTER 11 OF YOUR TEXTBOOK TO ADDRESS THE ABOVE ASYNCHRONOUS DISCUSSION ADEQUATELY. YOUR RESPONSES MUST BE SUPPORTED BY FACTS.
REMEMBER TO ALWAYS START A NEW THREAD TO POST YOUR DISCUSSION. NO ATTACHMENTS ARE ACCEPTED. TYPE YOUR DISCUSSION IN THE THREAD (THE BIG BOX AND THEN CLICK ON POST).
USE THE FOLLOWING FOURTH AMENDMENT EXCLUSIONARY RULE RUBRIC FOR YOUR DISCUSSION:
Question: “Should the Fourth Amendment’s Exclusionary Rule be strengthened, weakened, or abandoned?”
Rubric for the Exclusionary Rule:
1) Facts, Scope, and Roadmap (3 pts)
Precise, arguable thesis that clearly answers the question (strengthen/weaken/abandon) and defines scope (e.g., federal/state, specific exceptions, if any). Roadmap previews main claims.
2) Legal/Doctrinal Accuracy and Conceptual Mastery (2 pts)
(What the exclusionary rule is, why it exists, and how it operates today)
Accurate explanation of the rule’s constitutional status and rationales (deterrence, judicial integrity); explains how suppression works and correctly applies major exceptions/limits, e.g., the Good Faith Exception.
Doctrinal elements that may be assessed (not all required):
• Origins/incorporation (Weeks, Mapp)
• Good-faith exception (Leon, Herring)
• Attenuation (Wong Sun, Brown v. Illinois, Utah v. Strieff)
• Inevitable discovery (Nix), independent source (Murray)
• Limits on suppression (Hudson; standing doctrine)
• Relationship to remedies (civil suits, internal discipline, §1983, qualified immunity context)
3) Use of Authority and Evidence (2pts)
Uses strong, relevant sources, such as applicable case studies (e.g., Weeks v. United States, Mapp v. Ohio).
4) Argumentation and Analytical Depth (1 pt)
Develops a logically coherent argument; connects doctrine to normative principles (rights, legitimacy, accountability) and real-world consequences (crime control, police behavior, racial disparities, court legitimacy). Demonstrates causal reasoning and avoids fallacies.
5) Engagement with Counterarguments and Tradeoffs (1 pt)
Presents the strongest opposing arguments fairly (steel-manning), then responds with specific rebuttals; acknowledges genuine tradeoffs and limits.
6) Policy Proposal / Recommendation Specificity ( 1pt)
Provides a concrete, feasible recommendation tied to thesis (e.g., narrow/expand good-faith; statutory suppression for certain violations; warrant requirements; alternative remedies; exclusion for systemic violations). Explains implementation and likely effects.