The Fourth Amendment is the basis of many cherished rights in the United States, and the right to freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures is among them. Therefore, it would seem illegitimate, even un-American, for any law enforcement officer to illegally seek and seize evidence or for any court to charge the defendant with a guilty verdict established on illegally obtained evidence. One can only imagine how many people would have been locked up in our jails and prisons if it were not for the introduction of the exclusionary rule. The exclusionary rule is a law passed by the United States Supreme Court. It requires that “any evidence obtained by the police using methods that violate a person's constitutional rights be excluded from use in a criminal proceeding against that person” (Ferdico, Fradella, & Totten, 2009). Before this rule, under common law, evidence was recognized in court as long as it met evidentiary admissibility criteria such as relevance and reliability. Any evidence that satisfied these principles was admitted because it was deemed useful in obtaining justice. Under common law, evidence obtained through illegal searches and seizures was permitted (Tinsley & Kinsella, 2003). During this period, Fourth Amendment protections were unfulfilled words for people convicted as late as 1914 in Weeks v. United States. In the landmark 1914 case Weeks v. United States, the Supreme Court created the exclusionary rule and it was actually created to protect people from unreasonable searches and seizures by federal agents. The Court held that personal effects or any evidence seized without a warrant or the defendant's consent will be omitted in a criminal case...... middle of the document ......and Heritage Foundation Backgrounder.Ferdico, JN , Fradella, H. F. , & Totten, C. D. (2009). Criminal Procedure for the Criminal Justice Professional (10th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning. Holten, N. G., & Lamar, L. L. (1991). The structures, personnel and processes of criminal courts. Florida: McGraw-Hill, Inc. Mapp v. Ohio, 367 US 643 (1961). Retrieved October 13, 2011, from http://supreme.justia.com/us/367/643/case.htmlTinsley, P., & Kinsella, S. N. (2003). In defense of the evidence: against the exclusionary rule and against libertarian centralism. Retrieved November 15, 2011, from http://www.lewrockwell.com/kinsella/kinsella14.htmlWeeks v. United States, 232 US 383 (1914). Retrieved October 13, 2011, from http://laws.findlaw.com/us/245/618.htmlWolf v. Colorado, 338 US 25 (1949). Retrieved October 13, 2011, from http://laws.findlaw.com/us/338/25.html