Exclusionary Rule Search and seizures are protected under the fourth Amendment of the Constitution. Officer that go beyond the law and obtain evidence without a warrant are in breach of a person’s fourth amendment right. The evidence that is obtained is not admissible in court and fall under the exclusionary rule. This paper will discuss the benefits of the exclusionary rule, as well as alternative remedies to the rule. Reason for the Exclusionary Rule The exclusionary rule was created to protect innocent people from being harassed from law enforcement.
However, prohibition against double jeopardy does not preclude the crime victim from bringing a civil suit against that same person to recover damages (Miller & Jentz, 2008, pg 137). The Lectric Law Library at lectlaw.com (1995-2012) states that “the double jeopardy clause protects against three distinct abuses: 1. a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal, 2. a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction; and 3. multiple punishments for the same offense. In this case Armington is incorrect. Armington was tried and convicted of the crime of armed robbery and assault and battery. The civil tort suit is completely different and therefore does not fall under double jeopardy.
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.
They may, of course, be permitted to engage in certain authorized conduct that would be a crime if committed by regular citizens (such as the use of deadly force in appropriate circumstances). ● Civil lawsuits against government officials—the police, mainly—can be filed when neither the exclusionary rule nor other criminal remedies apply. Section 1983 litigation requires the plaintiff to show that a constitutional rights violation was committed by an official acting under color of state law. Section 1983 lawsuits can be filed against individual police officers, supervisors,
Although the penalties for burglary are harsh, it's often possible to get the charges reduced or dismissed. Because of legal technicalities and difficulties of proof, prosecutors frequently agree to settle cases for lesser charges. And burglary cases that go to jury trial, with an effective defense, can result in a "not guilty" verdict. Just because you are accused of or prosecuted for burglary does not mean that you must be convicted of burglary. Depending on what the judges charges are against Oliver he may get charged with the burglary on top of that he may be charged with possession of a firearm and silencers are illegal so that may be another charge he will be charged with.
However, there is currently no power for the prosecution to apply to overturn a verdict of acquittal entered at trial. Some of the main instances where the prosecution can seek an appeal or a reviewed. (p. 11) Even though we are being protected under the Fifth Amendment by the United States constitution, it may not give justice to those individuals. After doing this research on double jeopardy, I found that double jeopardy was established by the United States constitutional it come from Fifth Amendment. It protects individual against a second prosecution for the same crime, it also protects us multiple punishments by same crime.
Although the Supreme Court often speaks about a “preference” for the use of search warrants when it is feasible to obtain one,[FN1] and while the Fourth Amendment by its terms does not distinguish between “searches” and “seizures,” history and experience have created no similar preference for arrest warrants. [FN2] In 1789 it was first provided by statute that an arrest must be made “agreeably to the usual mode of process against offenders in such State.”[FN3] In 1948 the Supreme Court held, by analogy to this statute, that the validity of an arrest without a warrant is also to be tested by state law, except in those cases where Congress has enacted a federal rule. [FN4] Despite the repeal of the statute in 1948, state law still governs arrests without a warrant except to the extent that federal statutes grant or restrict the
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 is the Due Process Model at work. It is protecting the citizens from the state and federal governments from drawing out the trials, and allows for the citizen on trial to bring fourth witness and evidence to support their innocence in a court case. The state and federal government will have limited control over the sixth amendment in a case; such the Crime Control Model does not come into
For example, in juvenile court, attorneys are not required or appointed. Additionally juvenile court does not guarantee trial by jury, although many states do allow jury tries for juvenile cases. Critics of the juvenile court system, like Supreme Court Justice Douglas, who wrote the dissenting opinion for the landmark US Supreme Court case of McKeiver v. Pennsylvania, feel that denying juveniles these constitutional protections represent an “invidious discrimination… to be denied these same constitutional safeguards” as adults (McKeiver v. Pennsylvania). While juvenile courts do not guarantee the same legal rights as adult courts, the preclusion of these rights is actually to the benefit of the offender. While a jury may see certain mannerisms or behaviors of a juvenile offender on trial as signs of guilt, juvenile court judges are better able to understand the normal behavior of juvenile offenders on trial.