The exclusionary rule is a rule established by the court. That means it was created by the Supreme Court of the United States.” The exclusionary rule applies in federal courts through the Fourth Amendment. The Court ruled that it applies in state courts through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Bill of Rights, consisting of the first ten amendments, applies to actions of the federal government. With the Fourteenth Amendment the Court established that the protections contained in the Bill of Rights are applicable to the actions of states.” (TheFreeDictionary.com). Created to prevent police misconduct, the exclusionary rule allows courts to exclude the presentation of incriminating evidence at a trial when the evidence is shown to have been 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 poisoned tree” doctrine is tied 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." It is essentially illegal to use tampered evidence in court against a defendant. The U.S. Supreme Court's Use of the Exclusionary Rule The exclusionary rule has evolved in U.S. law through a series of Supreme Court cases. Since 1914, Supreme Court becomes concerned with use of illegal means by which police seize evidence in violation of the Constitution and then convict a defendant in court. Weeks v. United States (1914) Exclusionary Rule Applied to Federal Law Enforcement OfficersR.. . half of the document ... prohibits all unreasonable searches and seizures and requires a warrant.”(par. 1) The officers in this case deprived the woman of due process woman represented a clear violation of her constitutional rights as a homeowner. "Generally, 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. officer if they have reasonable grounds to believe that the person arrested committed the crime or, (3) under the authority of a warrant." (POLICE, 2011, p.183).“Most Supreme Court cases involving the Criminal justice seeks to find a balance between the rights of the individual and the rights of society. The Supreme Court has the difficult task of striking a balance between these two often conflicting objectives.” (POLICE, 2011, page.181).