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."
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
The amendment also explains how law enforcement should obtain information by search warrants based on probable cause. The exclusionary rule does not allow some evidence, if it will violate the Fourth Amendment law. The fourth amendment
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 . One such exigency is the need “to prevent the imminent destruction of evidence.” Brigham City, supra, at 403. Pp. 5–6. (b) Under the “police-created exigency” doctrine, which lower courts have developed as an exception to the exigent circumstances rule, exigent circumstances do not justify a warrantless search when the exigency was “created” or “manufactured” by the conduct of the police.
Stanley was later tried and convicted under the Georgia law prohibiting the possession of obscene materials. QUESTION: Did the Georgia government infringe on the freedom of rights and expression towards Stanley that are protected by the First Amendment? DECISION: Stanley received 9 votes from the Judges and 0 against him due to the fact the state of Georgia violated the First Amendment. Reasoning: A State does not hold any rights toward the control of men’s minds. The Constitution provides the right to be let alone, meaning Government cannot interfere or control what a person does in his or her own home.
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.
The District Court judge rejected the argument, but the notes were not released. The judge instructed the jury that they could presume that the contents could have been unfavorable to Redmond. The jury awarded monetary damages. The Court of Appeals reversed the decision. It found that Federal Rule of Evidence 501 prompted the recognition of a psychotherapist-patient privilege.
U.S. Supreme Court Search and Seizure: Arizona vs. Gant 1) The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States Constitution protect against unreasonable searches and seizures of a person and a person’s property. In order to conduct a search, the police must have probable cause and generally, a search warrant is required in order for the police to search. When law enforcement conducts a search without a warrant, the search is per se unreasonable. This means there is a presumption that the search was unreasonable and the burden is on the government to demonstrate that the search was reasonable and not illegal. Search Incident to a Lawful Arrest: The rationale behind this exception is that a person who has been arrested may destroy evidence or use some type of concealed weapon against the arresting officer.
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 .
2. The United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit ruled the “Act” violates the Constitution by denying health benefits to same-sex spouses. 3. Since 2010, courts reviewing the “Act” have found it unconstitutional even on a basic level of interpretation of the law. 4.