When does lawful police action impermissibly create exigent circumstances which prelude warrantless entry; and which of the five tests currently being used by United States Courts of Appeals is proper to determine when impermissibly created exigent circumstances exist? Holding: 1. The exigent circumstances rule applies when the police do not create the exigency by engaging or threatening to engage in conduct that violates the Fourth Amendment. (a) The Fourth Amendment expressly imposes two requirements: All searches and seizures must be reasonable; and a warrant may not be issued unless probable cause is properly established and the scope of the authorized search is set out with particularity. Although “ ‘searches and seizures inside a home without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable,’ ” Brigham City v. Stuart , 547 U. S. 398 , this presumption may be overcome when “ ‘the exigencies of the situation’ make the needs of law enforcement so compelling that [a] warrantless search is objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment ,” Mincey v. Arizona , 437 U. S. 385 .
The source of the exclusionary rule comes from the Supreme Court's 1914 verdict in the case of Weeks vs. U.S. The exclusionary rule basically says that illegally collected evidence will not be permitted in court. The rule was first used in the 1961 case of Mapp vs. Ohio. The exclusionary rule comes from the Fourth Amendment's safeguard against illegal searches and seizure of evidence or belongings. The exclusionary rule has typically been utilized to stop prosecutors and law enforcement from unlawfully collecting evidence.
In two late 1950s cases, Crooker v .California (1958) and Cicenia v. LA gay (1958), dissenting justice argued that voluntary confessions should be excluded on the grounds that defendants requests for attorney were denied (Zalman, p., 2008). The Aspects(S) Of Right to Counsel Regarding to the aspects of right to
Under the 4th amend., the absence of a warrant during a search & seizure (they had probable cause as well) evidence should of been inadmissible. DISPOSITION: - Court ruled 7-1 in favor of Katz. J.Black filed a dissenting opinion. J. Marshall didn't participate in the vote. J.Stewart wrote "one who shuts the door behind him, pays tikes, he is surely entitled to assume that the words he says into the mouthpiece will not be broadcasted to the world."
Q: The Texas high court held that the expert testimony relied upon the plaintiffs to establish their case was not reliable. Why did the court not order a new trial? After the cases have been presented, but before the case goes to the jury, a party may request that the court enter a judgment and it’s favor because there is not legally sufficient evidence on which a jury cannot find for the other party. The defense is more likely to prevail on such motion. That is, the judge holds that the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient grounds, even what is claim is true, to be able to win a verdict.
Exclusionary Rule Evaluation CJA/364 Exclusionary Rule Evaluation When an individual examines the exclusionary rule, components have to be taken into account in order to determine a meaning or justification for the law enforcement to obey by. This rule does not have anything to do with the fourth amendment although there are similar. For years the exclusionary rule has been used in order to understand how evidence is gathered and apprehended. This essay will explain the evaluation of the exclusionary rule, the exceptions, advantages and disadvantages to the rule. Although the examination of the exclusionary rule may constitute deterrence for law enforcement, the rule still may be considered constitution although its existence (Zalman, M. (2011)).
Exclusionary Rule Evaluation Paper Brandy Alston University of Phoenix Criminal Procedure CJA/353 Professor Joseph Wade April 11, 2012 Exclusionary Rule Evaluation Paper Should the exclusionary rule be abolish this question is one not to simple to answer. Many individuals say no other say yes, and for those that do not know what the exclusionary rule is then they do not know their Forth Amendment Right. This makes answering this question harder, the Exclusionary Rule and Fourth Amendment works jointly for the United States and the citizens. The Fourth Amendment in the US Constitution limits the action of official law enforcement and helps keep the public rights from being violated for unreasonable searches or something close in that rang. This paper will define Exclusionary Rule, the rationale and purpose of the Exclusionary rule, the exceptions, cost and benefits and alternative remedies to the Exclusionary Rule and if we should keep or wipe out the Exclusionary Rule.
Exclusionary Rule Evaluation In the 18th century the exclusionary rule under common law did not allow coerced confessions of defendants to be admitted in trial courts. It did not protect defendants from evidence that government officials seized during illegal searches from trials. Weeks v. United States (1914) held that the exclusionary rule was a part of the Fourth Amendment, and any illegally seized evidence cannot be used against the defendant. The decision made the exclusionary rule a constitutional requirement, but it did not bind states. Incorporating the rule to the state level was initiated in 1961 by way of the opinion of Mapp v. Ohio.
Chapter 12 Peremptory Challenge- A challenge that a party has to eliminate a potential juror, each side has a limited number of peremptory challenges, and it is not required to provide a reason for this challenge, and it may not be used to exclude one gender or race from the jury. Boston vs. Kentucky (1986)- held that prosecutors are barred from using peremptory challenges to remove black jurors because of their race. Challenges for cause- A challenge to a potential juror based on the jurors qualifications or lack of impartiality, (must have a reason) California vs., Green-held that Defendant is entitled to be confronted by the witness against him or her stated by the us Supreme Court. Benefits of being confronted by witness 1. Insures
I found it useful when learning and understanding the Exclusionary Rule to reference the below chart (National Paralegal College). It explains how evidence cannot be used if it violates the rights given to us under the United States Constitution (National Paralegal College). What the chart does not show is sometimes evidence that was used to other evidence that linked the suspect to the crime committed could possibly be inadmissible because of the Exclusionary Rule, which means your suspect who may have ultimately committed the crime goes free because the evidence cannot be used against him or