The exclusionary rule is a rule established by the courts. This means that it was created by the United States Supreme Court. » The exclusionary rule applies in federal courts through the Fourth Amendment. The Court held that it applies in state courts through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Bill of Rights, which includes the first ten amendments, applies to actions of the federal government. In the Fourteenth Amendment, the Court declared that the protections of the Bill of Rights are applicable to state actions. (TheFreeDictionary.com). Created to prevent police misconduct, the exclusionary rule allows courts to exclude the presentation of incriminating evidence at trial when it is proven that the evidence was obtained unconstitutionally. The exclusionary rule allows defendants to challenge the admissibility of evidence by filing a pretrial motion to suppress the evidence. The “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine is related to the exclusionary rule in court. According to Dempsey, John S. and Linda S. Forst (2011): “In its colorful language, the Court compared the illegal search to the “poisoned tree” and any evidence resulting from the illegal search to the fruit of the poisoned tree. . tree." Essentially, it is illegal to use tainted evidence in court against a defendant. The United States Supreme Court's use of the exclusionary rule The exclusionary rule evolved in American law to through a series of Supreme Court cases Since 1914, the Supreme Court has addressed the use of illegal means by which police seize evidence in violation of the constitution and then convict a defendant in court. . United States (1914)Exclusionary rule applied to federal law enforcement agenciesR ...... middle of paper ...... prohibits unreasonable search and seizure and requires a warrant » (para. 1) In this case, the police deprived the woman of due process. The lack of a warrant when entering the woman's home was a flagrant violation of her constitutional rights as a property owner. "In general, officers may arrest a person (1) for any crime committed in the presence of the officer, (2) for a crime not committed in the presence of the officer if they have probable cause to believe that the person they arrested committed the crime or, (3) under a warrant. (POLICE, 2011, p.183). “Most Supreme Court cases involving criminal justice attempt to balance the rights of the individual with the rights of society. The Supreme Court has the difficult task of finding a balance between these two often contradictory objectives. (POLICE, 2011, p...181).