Adj. Senators Letter

Congress of the United States,

There is a specific issue I would like to address, and that is the Exclusionary Rule.   I am most certain that you are familiar with the Exclusionary Rule, and its meaning.   The Exclusionary Rule is grounded by the Fourth Amendment, and its intentions are to protect citizens from illegal search and seizures.   I am most definitely for this rule.   I am a firm believer in our constitutional rights, and if it were not for the Exclusionary Rule, a lot of citizens that were charged with a crime after they were illegally searched will be found guilty, convicted, and then sentenced even though the evidence that was presented against them was gathered illegally.   That is flat out a violation of their Fourth Amendment rights.   If there was no Fourth Amendment, or Exclusionary Rule, a lot of people would be convicted of crimes based on the said   evidence gathered was gathered illegally against them, and that would most likely give law enforcement the opportunity to gather evidence in a less morale way.   I am not saying that all police officials would use these illegal tactics to gather evidence to convict a defendant, but there are some.   Example: Mapp vs. Ohio May 1957.   May 23, 1957 Cleveland Ohio police officials were following up on information they had about a bombing suspect was housed at Dollree Mapp house.   They were also under the impression that there was also illegal gambling equipment in the house.   The police attempted to try and search the house, but Ms. Mapp called her attorney, and refused to let the police search her home.   The police officers left but continued to surveillance her and when she did not come to the door immediately, the police took it upon themselves, and forcefully gained entrance to her home.   She then demanded to see the warrant, and when they did not give it to her, she snatched it from the officer.   The officers struggled with her to get the paper back, and also hurt her in the process of the struggle....