第四修正案的作用是使美国和联邦官员的法院在行使权力和权力时，在行使这种权力和权力的限制和约束下，永远保护人民，人，房屋，文件和效果，以法律为幌子进行所有不合理的搜查和扣押。法院认为，允许提交非法获得的证据实际上鼓励官员违反第四修正案。为了阻止违法行为，法院适用了“排除规则”。根据这一规则，进行无理，无根据搜查的联邦官员无法使用他们在法庭上发现的证据。在Weeks诉美国案之前，联邦官员没有因违反第四修正案而追究证据而受到惩罚。 Weeks诉美国案件向法院提供了一种防止对某人私有财产进行无端入侵的手段。如果非法取得的证据不能在法庭上使用，则没有理由让官员进行非法搜查。 Weeks中的排除规则仅适用于联邦官员，这意味着非法获得的证据不能用于联邦法院。该案件无法保护州法院的第四修正案权利。在Weeks诉美国案和Mapp诉俄亥俄州案之间，不受排除规则约束的州官员进行非法搜查和扣押并将证据交给联邦官员，这是司空见惯的事。 1960年，当法院裁定非法获得的证据的移交违反了第四修正案时，Elkins诉美国案缩小了这一差距。 Weeks诉美国案也为1961年的Mapp诉俄亥俄州奠定了基础，并将排除规则扩大到适用于州法院。该规则现在被视为第四修正案法的基本要素，为不合理的搜查和缉获提供统一的追索方式。
新加坡管理大学法律论文代写：排除规则
The role of the Fourth Amendment is to enable the courts of US and federal officials to protect people, people, houses, documents and effects forever, under the restrictions and constraints of exercising such powers and powers. Conduct all unreasonable searches and seizures. The court held that allowing the submission of illegally obtained evidence actually encouraged officials to violate the Fourth Amendment. In order to prevent illegal acts, the court applied the “exclusion rules”. According to this rule, unreasonable, unfounded federal officials are unable to use the evidence they found in court. Prior to Weeks v. United States, federal officials were not punished for pursuing evidence for violating the Fourth Amendment. Weeks v. The US case provides the court with a means of preventing unwarranted invasion of someone’s private property. If the illegally obtained evidence cannot be used in court, there is no reason for the official to conduct an illegal search. Exclusion rules in Weeks apply only to federal officials, which means that illegally obtained evidence cannot be used in federal courts. The case cannot protect the State Court’s Fourth Amendment rights. Between the Weeks v. US case and the Mapp v. Ohio case, it is commonplace for state officials not subject to exclusion rules to conduct illegal searches and seizures and hand over the evidence to federal officials. In 1960, when the court ruled that the transfer of illegally obtained evidence violated the Fourth Amendment, Elkins v. the United States case narrowed the gap. The Weeks v. US case also laid the groundwork for Mapp v. Ohio in 1961 and extended the exclusion rules to apply to state courts. The rule is now considered to be an essential element of the Fourth Amendment Act, providing a uniform recourse for unreasonable searches and seizures.