Wolf was trialed twice, he and his attorney argued and protested during both trials of the …show more content…
The evidence presented was too defining to not believe. The Colorado Supreme court backed the use of their evidence with the fact that, “in 1925 that evidence secured through searches and seizures in violation of the Colorado Constitution was still admissible in the state’s courts.” (Cortner) Thus, the court was allowed to use the evidence from the search and it would be accepted, even though done illegally, since it was under the law of Colorado. Meanwhile, Wolf and his attorney’s argument and objection was that the evidenced shouldn’t be introduced or yet only allowed to be used. They evidence were products of an illegal search and seizure and according to the Constitution under the Fourth Amendment he was supposed to be protected from