Rehnquist delivered the opinion of the 7-2 majority. The Court held that the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to review cases from state courts that deal primarily with federal law. The Court also held that the Fourth Amendment was designed to protect against intrusions into a home or onto private property, or the conduct of police officers. The exclusionary rule therefore does not apply to the conduct of judicial officers. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote a concurring opinion where she argued that the majority’s decision does not allow any evidence that is the result of a clerical error.…
Issue- Whether it was reasonable under the 4th amendment for the officers to enter a home without a warrant. Rule- Knock and Announce rule law enforcement has to knock and announce that they are police and wait a reasonable amount of time, usually seconds, before entering place before they search. (Wilson v Arkansas)…
The trial court, in this case the Superior Court, dismissed, or dropped, the charges against Mr. Greenwood stating that the warrantless searches of Mr. Greenwood's trash violated the protection from unreasonable search and seizure in the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution. The government then appealed to the Court of Appeals and the California Supreme Court, both courts denied the government's claims and the case was finally appealed the United States Supreme Court.…
Elizabeth, I do concede that Dripps model of the contingent exclusionary rule is fascinating; yet, it is my opinion that there are pros and cons. It is without doubt that the present exclusionary rule is controversial. I also concede that there isn’t a need to completely re-invent the wheel. Conversely, Dripps argues in regards of the contingent suppression order in which prosecutors would have to choose between accepting exclusion of evidence obtained through infractions of the Fourth Amendment or accepting the imposition of a damages judgment obtained through infractions of the Fourth Amendment or accepting the imposition of a damages judgment against the state under an administration of statutory damages (Tipton, 2010).…
The arguments for Terry were Fourth Amendment violation, Prejudicial Profiling, and Lack of Specificity in Suspicion. The arguments for the officer were Limited Intrusion, Reasonable Suspicion, and Public Protection. Terry wanted to challenge the officer and say that the search was unconstitutional. Terry wanted the court to favor him and say that the officer violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The decision was that the search and seizure by the officer was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.…
In chapter six, the author examines searches for evidence. The fourth amendment commands the use of warrants. As previously stated, warrants usually consist of three elements to meet the fourth amendment standard. I believe the knock and announce rule is truly effective procedure because this standard can protect officers from injury and more than likely preserve physical evidence from being destroyed. This is also a valuable tool in preventing a high risk target from escaping the scene.…
Even if appellant had been subject to an illegal arrest, he would not be entitled to the suppression of the evidence because the police station arrest had not been the fruit of the bicycle detention. The court held that when the connection between illegal police conduct and the discovery and seizure of evidence is so attenuated as to dissipate the taint, the evidence will not be excluded. Segura v. United States, 468 U.S. 796, 805 (1984). In 1984, the Court first recognized the inevitable discovery doctrine as an exception to the exclusionary rule in Nix v. Williams and held that if the prosecution can establish that evidence unlawfully seized would have been discovered by lawful means, the exclusionary rule does not apply and the evidence is still admissible.…
(D) Even if this Court finds that the initial search and seizure is illegal under the Fourth Amendment, Evidence of the Suicide Note is still Admissible through the Attenuation Doctrine, as an Exception to the Exclusionary Rule The “fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine” is an exclusionary rule designed to deter police misconduct that prohibits the introduction of evidence that is causally connected to an unlawful search. (People v. Navarro (App. 2 Dist. 2006)…
DAVID FALLSBAUER’S RIGHTS UNDER THE FOURTH AMENDMENT WERE VIOLATED BY THE POLICE OFFICERS, BECAUSE WHEN FACED WITH AMBIGUITY REGARDING THE A THIRD PARTY’S CONSENT TO SEARCH THEY FAILED TO MAKE A FURTHER INQUIRY. BY DOING SO, THE OFFICERS VIOLATED DAVID’S RIGHT TO PRIVACY. The primary question before this Court is whether police officers must make a further inquiry when faced with an ambiguity regarding a third party’s consent to search. The Federal Circuit Courts of Appeals have taken different views when deciding the actions a police officer must take when faced with an ambiguity pertaining to third party consent. It is crucial to our society that a person’s right to privacy is protected and able to be exercised.…
And this isn’t the first time justice has been tainted because of this flaw in the judicial system. According to legaldictionary.com in an article titled “the Exclusionary Rule” it states “The Exclusionary Rule prevents the government from using evidence in trial which was derived from an illegal search, seizure, arrest, or interrogation.” This means any evidence found “the wrong way” is surpassed and inadmissible in a criminal trial. Now, many believe that this law is crucial in order to prevent our rights being stolen from us to obtain evidence in…
After having failed in the previous attempt to enter the house, the officers forcibly go in using a purported search warrant and searched the home in which crude materials were found. The rule of law in scrutiny was the violation of the American Constitution as explained in the Fourth Amendment. The law termed all evidence collected in violation of this amendment to be unacceptable and irrelevant in the court proceedings. Question…
According to the majority of the Supreme Justice’s an illegal stop is justified and the exclusionary rules do not apply if the suspect has an outstanding arrest warrant and that the misconduct was not blatant. In other words, “the exclusion outweighs its benefits”. In addition, calculating the distance from the arrest to the residence and its further analysis is sufficient enough to justify the arrest and clarify the evidence as admissible (suffiecntly attenuated). In this case, the exclusionary rule did not help Edward Strieff. The question is whether the Supreme Court would have felt the same way, if the strife did not have an outstanding warrant.…
Amendment IV The fourth amendment is one of the primitive and mainly significant entitlements bestowed to the citizens of The United State of America; the law, distinctively states, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” What Does the Fourth Amendment Mean? The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution stipulates, the entitlement of individuals to be secure in their individualities, dwellings, documents, and possessions, against irrational searches…
After a person is arrested, there are steps and processes that must be followed. One big part of the process includes searches and seizures. What in particular has to be noted when it comes to searches are the principles behind illegal searches, what can constitute a legal and illegal search, and when the lines can be blurred between the two. Searches are necessary to gather evidence. They play big roles in any investigation, but they must be conducted correctly.…
One of the most controversial, and perhaps,most important American legal principle, is the exclusionary clause which under Constitutional law, holds that evidence collected or analyzed in violation of defendants constitutional rights is not permitted for use in criminal persecutions. Sparked by the famous case Mapp v. Ohio, the exclusionary rule has a fair share of critics who argue that police blunders let criminals go free. In the 1961 Supreme Court case, Dollree Mapp was convicted when police searched her house ,under a false warrant, for a suspected bomb fugitive and found “lewd, lavicious, or obscene material”, otherwise known as pornography. Mapp claimed the police had no probable cause to search for the obscene materials found; the Court let her go because the material had been seized without a warrant. Despite the occasional occurrence of criminals going free, the exclusionary rule is vital to democracy because the principle ensures liberty and justice in America for all.…