• Exclusionary Rule Consider the following situations in which government officials illegally obtained evidence of a crime. Then answer the questions that follow.

a. A chief executive officer (CEO) of a major corporation that employs hundreds of thousands of workers faces criminal charges for stealing millions of dollars from employee pension (retirement) funds. Government officials obtained evidence of the crime by hacking into the CEO's home computer.

b. A high school junior faces criminal charges for selling marijuana. Police suspected that the student was involved in drug trafficking, went to the student's home without a warrant, and broke in after they determined that no one was home. They found receipts for drug sales and other incriminating evidence.

c. A person faces criminal conspiracy charges for planning to blow up an office building in Miami. Government officials obtained evidence of the plot by illegally wire-tapping the defendant's home phone.

d. A person faces criminal charges for tax evasion, a crime that government officials had suspected for many years but never been able to prove. They obtained evidence to support the charges by paying the defendant's accountant to give them records of the defendant's income for the past 15 years.

1) Should the evidence obtained in each situation be allowed in or excluded from the trial of each of the defendants? Explain your reasoning.

2) If you think the exclusionary rule is not appropriate in any of the situations described above, what alternative would you suggest and why?