This means if a person is arrested without a warrant or without probable cause and incriminating evidence is discovered after the arrest, that evidence cannot be used against the arrestee. Automobile Exception: The United States Supreme Court has stated individuals have a reduced expectation of privacy in vehicles and because vehicles are “readily mobile” it is not practical to require police to obtain a search warrant for a car. If the police have reasonable suspicion to believe that a crime has been committed, they can initiate a traffic stop. Reasonable suspicion can be nothing more than the driver’s failure to use a turn signal when changing lanes or not wearing a seat belt. If the initial traffic stop is valid, and the police develop additional
There are many controversial issues in the criminal justice system, but none more so than the use of the exclusionary rule to suppress evidence. This rule, based on protection offered under the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable search and seizure, has been in place at the federal level since 1914 and at the state level since 1961. (Scheb, 2008) There are both pros and cons to the continued use of the exclusionary rule, as well as some possible alternatives. Our system of justice is based on the idea of “separation of powers” that prevents any one branch from overstepping its powers. In line with this, the investigative department requests warrants to search for evidence, but they must be approved by the judicial branch.
By making this exclusionary rule, the court has to take the incentive away so police cannot take a person’s constitutional right’s away. Law enforcement cannot just bust down a person door just because police cannot even search a person car without a search warrant. There is a purpose to this rule and that is to make law enforcement enforce their own rules. The main purpose is to deter police or discourage police from doing illegal searched. The purpose also is if law enforcement was to take the evidence it would not be used in the court of law unless issue or that person can be set free of all charges.
This was then said to be justified because the car was on public streets so the fourth amendment doesn’t apply. The court of appeals denied the argument implying that you can’t track a person’s movements for an extensive amount of time, because the government would gather more information about your everyday life, then just the location of the car. The Constitution is potentially violated in this case because the use of privacy-invading technologies. Providing the courts with all the evidence reveals this case as an unconstitutional search. This illustrates the conflict between the freedom of individual privacy and the order from the government’s political values.
- cert was granted ISSUE: - Did the FBI violated Katz 4th Amendment Right? (to privacy) HOLDING: - Yes REASONING: - The phone booth should be considered protected when doors are shut but the 4th amend. protects persons not places from unreasonable intrusion. In a public place, a person can have that reasonable expectation (but isn't protected because of plain view) Since the government was electronically listening and recording the conversation, it is constituted as a search & seizure. Under the 4th amend., the absence of a warrant during a search & seizure (they had probable cause as well) evidence should of been inadmissible.
It protects the guilty rather than the victims. This rule basically states that evidence obtained illegally cannot be used in a criminal trial. The basis of this rule is supposed to prevent the police and other sections of the government from illegally searching or violating our homes and our privacy. When all it really does is prevents the truth from surfacing and help criminals go free. After researching both sides of this issue, in no way am I stating that I don’t understand the determination of the opposing side to keep this rule.
Police officer need a warrant to search a person, no matter who he is. I support the first opinion, I believe the police officers are protector of people rights, but sometimes they need to invade certain person’s own right to protect the whole society. Police officer can search without warrant in three cases, “The first, called the “plain view doctrine,” refers to situations in which the police, during the course of legal police business, see something of interest in plain view, for example, if a police officer on duty on the street, and see someone sitting in the car and use illegal drug, he can seize the evidence without the warrant. Second, the police can also legally conduct a warrantless search if you give permission for them to do so. Finally, a police officer can conduct a “search incident to arrest” without a warrant.
Imagine a society where the rights of individuals are not protected. A law enforcement agency can search a person’s telephone, e-mail communications, medical, financial, and other records. If they suspect any terrorism-related acts, they can detain anyone indefinitely. This is Patriot Act. Even though advocates claim that the Patriot Act helps to protect the national security, the Patriot Act is unjust.
At what stage in the criminal justice process does double jeopardy attach itself to the proceedings? . Double Jeopardy attaches when the jury is empanelled, the first witness is sworn, or a plea is accepted. Once jeopardy has attached, the full array of the Fifth Amendment protections against multiple prosecutions and multiple punishments takes hold. The double jeopardy clause in the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution forbids the government from prosecuting individuals more than one time for a single offense and from imposing more than one punishment for a single act.
In the U.S. constitution the 5th amendment protects citizens from the abuse of government employees. The 14th amendment prohibits state and local governments from depriving any person’s life, liberty, or property without taking the proper and certain steps to ensure fairness to that individual. A lot can go into answering the question: why did u use excessive force. The answers can be race of the cop and victim, situation, looks even the victims attitude towards the arresting officer etc… There are certain things you can do to fight back using your voice, the law and the courts. If you are