Katz v US 389 US 347 (1967) PROCEDURAL HISTORY: - Katz was convicted under a fed. statute of transmitting wagering info by a telephone across state lines. (boston, massachusetts, and miami, florida) - court of appeals affirmed conviction - supreme court granted cert. and reversed conviction FACTS: - katz was seen using 3 bank telephone booths during certain hours and on a daily basis ( never used any other booth) - Feb 19-25 @ set hours, Special Agents from the FBI placed microphones in 2 booths used by katz since the 3rd one was out of order - conversations were about Katz placed bets and obtaining gambling info - @ trial, evidence was introduced - Katz wanted to suppress evidence under the 4th amendment - petition to suppress was denied - court of appeal rejected the disagreement that evidence was inadmissible. - cert was granted ISSUE: - Did the FBI violated Katz 4th Amendment Right?
The Weeks case pertained to an appeal by a defendant who was convicted of transporting lottery tickets through the mail. The conviction was based on evidence gathered after law enforcement officers searched the defendant’s home without a warrant and seized the evidence illegally. The defendant’s conviction was overturned by the Supreme Court and this created what we now know as the exclusionary rule. It was in the case of Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961), that the Supreme Court made the rule germane to the states. Justice Day said, "The tendency of those who execute the criminal laws of the country to obtain convictions by means of unlawful searches and enforced confessions .
The court rejected the Government’s suggestion that the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule should not apply where evidence is seized in reasonable good-faith reliance on a search warrant. Procedural History: In August 1981, acting on a tip from a confidential informant, officers of the Burbank Police Department began an extensive investigation by surveillance at Respondents’ residences involving drug-trafficking. Respondents Armando Sanchez and Patsy Stewart were identified to be selling large quantities of cocaine and methaqualone from their residence. A check of one of the individuals, Richardo Del Castillo, led officers to Respondent Alberto Leon who had prior arrests for drug charges and was heavily involved in the importation of drugs into this country. Based off of the police officers’ observations and activities at their homes, Officer Cyril Rombach, an experienced, narcotics investigator, prepared an affidavit for a warrant
MAPP VS OHIO Issues:The search of Mapp's home was not legal and the evidence admissible under State law and criminal procedure? Why was the case heard:This case clearly overruled Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25 (1949). The federal licenced rule now applies to the States through application of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. All illegally obtained evidence under the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution must now be excluded. Facts: Three Cleveland police officers arrived at the petitioner’s house looking for a bombing suspect hiding out in her house.
They argued, however, that because Miranda had been convicted of a crime in the past, he must have been aware of his rights. The Arizona Supreme Court denied his appeal and upheld his conviction. Miranda then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which reviewed his case in 1966 (Miranda v. Arizona). Decision The Warren Court argued February 28 – March 2, 1966 Did not decide until June 13, 1966 There were 5 votes for Miranda and 4 votes against Chief Justice Warren, ruled that the prosecution could not introduce Miranda's confession as evidence in a criminal trial because “the police had failed to first inform
According to Larry Greenemeier, a recent court case, Carpenter V. United States "specifically pits the privacy of information that wireless devices share with their service providers-the towers or " cell sites" devices connect to, the phone numbers they call and answer, and the time and length of those calls-against law enforcement's authority to retrieve that data without a warrant." However, the FBI issued court orders under the 1986 SCA in order to compel carriers to turn that information over to the FBI. This would be acceptable despite the fact that a warrant requires more reasoning to receive. If they felt strongly enough that they had reason to obtain certain information, they should have to convince a judge to see the situation from the same point of view. “ Without a warrant, but with the SCA court order in hand-the FBI compelled MetroPCS to provide about four months of location records for a smartphone owned by suspect Timothy Ivory Carpenter.” Based off of the information the authorities had previously, it would not have been hard to convince a judge to issue them a warrant.
Here are the particulars of the problems of this case; one the DNA collected was not needed for the assault case again in which Mr. King pleaded guilty. The collection of DNA of any prisoner or person convicted of a crime is the law in Maryland. If they did not know that it does not state that any person arrested or an arrestee is to be swab. “Maryland DNA Collection Act”, was enacted to authorize state and local law enforcement authorities to collect DNA samples from persons arrested for a crime of violence, an attempted crime of violence, a burglary or, an attempted burglary.(Pub. Safety Article #2-504(3)).
In the case of Dickerson v. The United States it states that the suspect made a voluntary statements after he was arrested. I was advised by my uncle who is a lieutenant he states, Police do not have to warn arrested individuals who make voluntary statements of their Miranda Rights, as long as they don’t coerce or give misleading advise in order to get a confession out of a suspect. He also stated that in many cases, he himself has witnesses suspects who have been caught by the police, confess their entire
The evidence that surfaced was able to link Nikon to destroying key documents to cover-up of the break in as well as uncovering that the Nixon reelection committee had run “dirty schemes and tricks” during the campaign against the Democrats. It also shed light on the administrations illegal wiretapping of phones of “the enemies” or journalists that had been extremely critical of Nixon. Even though Nixon continued to maintain that he was innocent it was later revealed after numerous attempts to obtain the evidence that he secretly taped routine conversations that were had in his office. After the amount of incriminating evidence and the endless wonder about the depth of his involvement on August 8, 1974 during a televised special announcement Richard Nixon gave a one line speech vaguely admitting his involvement and public stepping down from office as President. He was succeeded by Gerald Ford who later pardoned Nixon from his crimes.
Evidence seized by private parties is not excluded from trial if the search was not in the direction of law enforcement officers. If a criminal defendant testifies in his or her own defense, illegally seized evidence may be used to impeach the defendant’s testimony. Evidence seized in violation of a person’s Fourth Amendment rights may be used in Grand Jury proceedings and civil proceedings. In a grand jury proceeding, illegally seized evidence may not be used if it was obtained in violation of the federal government. In the case of United States v. Herring, the officer arrested the defendant without a proper arrest warrant.