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.
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.
The two types of searches are those with and those without a __________. Under the __________ doctrine, a consent to search is valid if given by a person whom the police reasonably believe has authority to give that consent, even if, in fact, the person does not have authority. Searches of closely and highly __________ business do not require a warrant or probable cause. Based on the requirement of reasonability for search and seizure, the scope of an allowable search becomes more extensive as the item sought becomes __________. In U.S. v. Ursery (1996), the U.S. Supreme Court held that forfeiture in addition to criminal punishment did not violate _________.
An example is when the Miranda Doctrine is not observed upon arresting, the right of self-incrimination may be invoked so as for the evidences against the defense be inadmissible. In order for the Miranda Doctrine to be validly executed, such must be stated in the presence of the counsel for the defense. Such doctrine may be waived, but must be made with utmost knowledge of its consequences (Israel et al, 1993). Although both Fifth and Sixth Amendments embody significant rights for the citizens, it still has differences, one of which is that pertaining to the inquiries pertaining to the case is not allowed in the Fifth Amendment. The Sixth amendment protects the accused upon the case against him.
During another search, police found even more evidence. Procedural History: The case was Issues: Issue 1: Whether the exclusionary rule applies in this case. The rule forbids using illegally obtained evidence in court unless it was an emergency circumstance. However, the police stated there were exigent circumstances that surpassed the need for a warrant. At the same time under the police-created exigency doctrine, exigent circumstances do not justify a warrantless search if the circumstances were created by the police [ii].
It states that no object may be used in court as evidence if obtained illegally or without a proper search warrant. Legal questions to be addressed by the court: Whether the exclusionary rule is appropriate for violation of the knock-and-announce requirement? The decision of the court: With a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court found that the exclusionary rule is not appropriate for violations of the knock and announce rule. The Court noted that a knock-notice violation is rarely the “but-for” cause of obtaining inculpatory evidence. Consequently, when the police violate knock-notice rules by not announcing their presence or waiting sufficient time before forcing their way in),
Understanding Search and Seizure Ann Pierce AIU Online Abstract What are the guidelines for search and seizure? When is it ok to not have a warrant to search? This paper will look at what is required to get a warrant, when one is needed or not needed, and some of the types of searches performed by police. Understanding Search and Seizure The 4th amendment states: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. The fourth amendment is about privacy.
Unit 17 P1 Unit 17 P1 Warrantless Arrests Generally, an officer may make an arrest in a public place without a warrant if probable cause exists. Probable cause in this scenario does not require the approval of a judge or magistrate, rather it may be derived from reliable tips, a routine vehicle stop, a "stop and frisk" or any additional evidence that an officer observes. Also, an officer may enter private property to make an arrest, but only if "exigent" or emergency circumstances exist, such as the safety of others or even the suspect himself. Warranted arrests To obtain a warrant, probable cause would have to be presented to a judge there would be evidence and/or testimony to support the warrant. An arrest without a warrant would be one that someone, usually an officer, caught someone in the act of committing the crime.
David Gray CJUS 200 Application Essay 2-15-14 Can you seize the marijuana plants at that time? If yes, what is your legal justification for doing so? If no, what legally prohibits you from doing so? No, as a police officer you would not be able to seize the marijuana plants at this time, by doing so you would be violating the rights of the citizens of the house that was entered due to the noise ordinance. Actually, the fourth amendment would actually keep you from doing so because it states that “every citizen right to be free from unreasonable government intrusion into their persons, homes, businesses, and property –whether through police stops of citizens on the street, arrests, or searches of homes and businesses”.
United States, held a device not in public use to examine what would otherwise be hidden is a search, thus presumptively unreasonable without a warrant. Warrantless searches: Supreme Court has held that constitutional warrantless searches include: -Area within an arrestee’s immediate control -Premises police enter in hot pursuit of an armed suspect -Stop-and-frisk searches for weapons -Inventory searches of property (e.g., briefcase, automobile) in an arrestee’s possession -Consensual searches The exclusionary rule The exclusionary rule prevents the use of evidence seized in an illegal search in a subsequent trial of the defendant. The Fifth Amendment The Fifth Amendment provides a privilege or protection against compelled testimonial self-incrimination -Practical meaning: a person may remain silent if making a statement would assist the government in prosecuting the person - Miranda warnings Safe guard the right -Also prohibits prosecutorial comments at trial about the defendant’s failure to testify. Double jeopardy