While every effort has been made to follow citation style rules, there may be some discrepancies. Please refer to the appropriate style manual or other sources if you have any questions.
Select Citation Style Copy Citation Share to social media Give Feedback External Websites Thank you for your feedbackOur editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.
External Websites verifiedCiteWhile every effort has been made to follow citation style rules, there may be some discrepancies. Please refer to the appropriate style manual or other sources if you have any questions.
Select Citation Style Copy Citation Share to social media External Websites Thank you for your feedbackOur editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.
External Websites Written and fact-checked by The Editors of Encyclopaedia BritannicaEncyclopaedia Britannica's editors oversee subject areas in which they have extensive knowledge, whether from years of experience gained by working on that content or via study for an advanced degree. They write new content and verify and edit content received from contributors.
The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica Table of Contents Key People: Stanley F. Reed Tom C. Clark Frank Murphy (Show more) Related Topics: admissibility (Show more)Ask the Chatbot a Question
Ask the Chatbot a Question
exclusionary rule, in U.S. law, the principle that evidence seized by police in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution may not be used against a criminal defendant at trial.
The Fourth Amendment guarantees freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures—that is, those made without a warrant signed by a judge. The U.S. Supreme Court held in Wolf v. Colorado (1949) that “security of one’s privacy against arbitrary intrusion by the police—which is at the core of the Fourth Amendment—is basic to a free society.” However, that decision did not extend to state courts. During the next decade, approximately half of the states adopted the rule. Later the Supreme Court held in Mapp v. Ohio (1961) that the rule had to be applied universally to all criminal proceedings.
The broad provisions of the exclusionary rule came under legal attack, and in U.S. v. Leon (1984) the Supreme Court held that evidence obtained “in good faith” with a search warrant later ruled invalid was admissible. A central argument was the unacceptable social cost of excluding such evidence, a reason subsequently given for creating further exceptions to the rule.