“But what he seeks to keep as private, even in an area accessible to the public may be constitutionally protected” ~ Justice Potter Stewert (Katz vs. United States). Now don’t get me wrong, because at no point am I saying that what DLK was doing was “right”. However, DLK obviously “expected to keep what he was doing as private”. Therefore, the law enforcement should have gotten a search warrant from a judge prior to searching DLK’s home. I believe many of you would argue that the law enforcement didn’t need to get a search warrant in order to search DLK’s house, because DLK could easily destroy the evidence.
It applies to evidence gained from an unreasonable search or seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment (Mapp v. Ohio, 1961). If evidence falls within the scope of the exclusionary rule led law enforcement to other evidence, which they would not otherwise have located, then the exclusionary rule applies to the related evidence found subsequent to the excluded evidence as well. Such subsequent evidence has taken on the name of “fruit of the poisonous tree” (Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 1920). The Exclusionary Rule is a court-created remedy and deterrent, not an independent constitutional right. Courts will not apply the rule to exclude illegally gathered evidence where the costs of exclusion outweigh its deterrent or remedial benefits.
Many believe that a government without limits will turn into a government that acts in ways that will disregard the rights of all in all circumstances (Zalman, M. (2008). Those who support the crime control model, however, indicate that these protections hinder law enforcement investigation and allow defendants more privacy than victims are allowed “Crime control emphasizes an efficient criminal process through early determination of guilt by law enforcement agents” and the Fourth Amendment prevents this (Cornell,
This amendment restricts their course of action during a criminal investigation (Fourth Amendment, 2013). However, it also bans unreasonable searches and seizures in the context of civil litigation (Fourth Amendment, 2013). A search may only be conducted if suspicion is the motivation to do so (Fourth Amendment, 2013). Under the Fourth Amendment, generalized searches are prohibited unless circumstances which place the general public in jeopardy (Fourth Amendment, 2013). If an individual wants to sue regarding a supposed Fourth Amendment violation, they must have a standing (Fourth Amendment, 2013).
Exclusionary Rule is also grounded in Fourth Amendment and it is projected to guard people from prohibited searches and seizures. This Rule is also intended give a deterrent and remedy, which is short of criminal prosecution in reply to prosecutors and police who unlawfully collect substantiation in infringement of the Fifth Amendment in the Bill of Rights bound to self-incrimination. This rule also assures the right to counsel (Carrie). The exclusionary rule has 3 elements: unlawful act did by an officer or a person who acts as an agent or police, secured evidence, and informal link between the criminal action and the substantiation secured. There are three exceptions to the exclusionary rule.
Investigation: A person can have reasonable privacy even in a public place. In this case, the person utilizing the phone booth would expect reasonable privacy because they would not think that their conversation would be recorded regardless of the conversations that took place. Under the Fourth Amendment, the taping of the phone conversations constitutes the search even though the search was achieved without a warrant. Conclusion: The evidence such as the tapes were inadmissible under the Fourth Amendment. Thus, the conviction was overturned.
Since Mapp and other significant decisions, innocent people have been subjected to fewer unconstitutional searches, not necessarily because the police fear the exclusion of evidence but because of the potential for civil liability, citizen complaints, and the like. The rules of law decided in Mapp v. Ohio relate to the relevant facts in the fact pattern based on the Fourth Amendment violation. Det. Quickdraw is a representative for the government, but he failed to uphold the law by not following the correct criminal procedure for search and seizure. In conclusion, if I were the judge ruling in this case, I could apply the exclusionary rule and any evidence that was obtained during the unlawful search would not be admissible.
Likening such statements to fraud, defamation, or lies to government agencies, all of which can be prohibited consistent with the First Amendment, the dissenters argued that the government should have a free hand to prosecute those who lie about having earned military honors. The dissenters recognized that false statements may be protected when laws restricting them might chill otherwise protected speech, but argued that the Stolen Valor Act does not implicate that concern because the subject matter of the lies does not relate to any protected
Many people do not know they have the right to say no to a search even if they are innocent. “The greater the restraint on an individual’s freedom of movement, the more a police encounter will seem like a seizure” (Robinson, 2004). Another exception to the fourth amendment is exigent circumstances and according to Denise Robinsons article Kaupp v. Texas: Breathing life into the fourth amendment she says that “in some cases, a warrant is not necessary if both probable cause and exigent circumstances are present at the time of the seizure” (2004). Exigent circumstances are important because an officer “believes that getting a warrant will create the risk of injury or death or result in the destruction of evidence” (Davenport, 2009, p. 376). A good example is when an officer is in pursuit of a moving vehicle or chasing after a suspect, if they do not seize the suspect, all the evidence that is on the suspect could
“For example, it makes little sense to require an officer to obtain a search warrant to seize contraband that is in plain view. Under the Fourth Amendment's reasonableness requirement, the appropriateness of every warrantless search is decided on a case-by-case basis, weighing the defendant's privacy interests against the reasonable needs of law enforcement under the circumstances” (G K. Hill, 2005). Another exception to warrant requirements as it pertains to the above article is that the video released shows there was a lack of physical harm as seen on George Zimmerman. This was important to the prosecution because Zimmerman claimed Trayvon Martin attacked him and his death was a result of self defense. In conclusion, authority’s base warrants on probable cause which are only necessary in a small percentage of cases.