The United States takes pride in its democratic system to the extent of feeling compelled to spread democracy across the world. However, to be rightfully applied, democracy requires that the rights of the people to be assured. Police officers ensure that the individuals abide by the law and that their rights are respected. Yet sometimes, the rights of the people have to be protected from the protectors themselves.

The exclusionary rule, which bans the use of improperly obtained evidence in criminal trials, has been strongly asserted by the U.S. Supreme Court for nearly a century in order to make sure that police officers don’t disregard individuals’ rights while conducting an investigation. But recently, in an unprecedented ruling, the Supreme Court decided in Herring v. United States that evidence obtained through police “negligence” is permissible in court. This creates a loophole in the exclusionary rule that is not acceptable. The rules governing an investigation have to be well defined in order to respect people’s rights. Allowing evidence obtained unlawfully due to negligence can create a gray area that will allow further intrusion of police officers into the lives of citizens.

The Court’s decision could give rise to a world in which policemen plead “negligent” as a cover-up for violations of individuals’ rights in a variety of circumstances. For example, policemen might conduct unwarranted searches claiming that they forgot to file the warrant papers or that they thought they had a warrant even though insufficient evidence existed to obtain one.

In addition, the consequences of such a ruling will be felt disproportionately along the socioeconomic spectrum, as socioeconomically disadvantaged citizens are more likely to be harassed by police officers. Racial minorities will likely suffer from increased mistreatment too. Bearing in mind that these vulnerable groups often lack adequate legal defense and counsel, this ruling will cause many injustices.

Although more rigid application of the exclusionary rule might lead to some criminals escaping the hand of the law, this is a necessary sacrifice to create a fairer justice system for all. Looking at the broader picture, enforcement of the exclusionary rule will lead to the protection of the privacy and rights of all citizens instead of making them vulnerable to the abuse of the authorities.

The Supreme Court has taken a dangerous decision by allowing evidence obtained illegally to be used in a trial. For a democracy to flourish, no one can be above the law. We would rather have police procedures follow strict and clear rules in order to ensure citizens’ rights and privacy than catch the occasional extra criminal.