Police may seize property without a warrant if the evidence is in plain view (Justia.com, 2011). Police officers used to violate suspects’ constitutional rights by conducting illegal search and seizures that violates suspects’ rights. The exclusionary rule helps ensure law enforcement officers no longer violate suspects’ Fourth Amendment rights by obtaining evidence during illegal searches and seizures. The rule protects adults and juveniles. The exclusionary rule also deters unlawful police conduct because the evidence collected is inadmissible in a
The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects citizens from unreasonable search and seizure, but certain understandings of "reasonableness" have changed throughout U.S. history. If a vehicle search is conducted illegally, any evidence or information obtained by the search may not be used by the prosecution (this is referred to as the "exclusionary rule"). The line between lawful and unlawful vehicle searches can seem a bit blurry, and tends to get redefined frequently through the courts. When vehicle searches are legal is when an officer has consent to search from the driver, officer has probable cause to suspect the presence of incriminating evidence in the vehicle or if Officer reasonably believes that a vehicle search is necessary for his or her own protection (suspicion of a concealed weapon, for example). Other misdemeanors under state statute can automatically engage in a lawful search such as a DUI or other arrest able conditions.
The Supreme Court created the exclusionary rule to prevent police misconduct. When a police officer is in violation of an individual’s fourth amendment right which is the right to be free from illegal search and seizure, the evidence found during that illegal act is kept out of federal court. This would have been helpful during the OJ Simpson trial. The exclusionary rule not only has three elements to it but it has a purpose for it too. With this are the three elements which are as follows.
(caselaw.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/). Four models of the Fourth Amendment provide protection: a probabilistic model, a private facts model, a positive law model, and a policy model (Stanford Law Review, p. 503). Exceptions of the right of privacy, is not as stringent in a person’s vehicle. If one’s behavior is suspicious, an officer may impound the vehicle or search its contents without a warrant. The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution According to Tom Head’s Civil Liberties, and the Fifth Amendment, a person cannot be held for questions in a capital crime unless an indictment has been issued by a Grand Jury.
“But what he seeks to keep as private, even in an area accessible to the public may be constitutionally protected” ~ Justice Potter Stewert (Katz vs. United States). Now don’t get me wrong, because at no point am I saying that what DLK was doing was “right”. However, DLK obviously “expected to keep what he was doing as private”. Therefore, the law enforcement should have gotten a search warrant from a judge prior to searching DLK’s home. I believe many of you would argue that the law enforcement didn’t need to get a search warrant in order to search DLK’s house, because DLK could easily destroy the evidence.
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].
Courts will not apply the rule to exclude illegally gathered evidence where the costs of exclusion outweigh its deterrent or remedial benefits. Thus, the rule is not triggered when courthouse errors lead police officers to mistakenly believe that they have a valid search warrant, because excluding the evidence would not deter police officers from violating the law in the future (Arizona v. Evans, 1996). In this case, no warrant was obtained and, given the improper consent to search, the motion to exclude the physical evidence filed by William Ellis’s attorney would in all likelihood be granted. In sum, the Supreme Court has addressed the issue of a “murder scene” exception to the warrant requirement on three separate occasions spread out over a twenty year period. In each instance, the Court has emphatically rejected the notion that such an exception exists.
Consent to Search Sondra Silverberg Criminal Evidence Prof. Alana DeGarmo Date The Fourth Amendment protects people from police searches unless they consent to the search. In many cases, suspects consent to a search because they are not aware of the fact that they can refuse to consent. However, it is easier for a police officer if the person consents to the search. Without the consent, the officer has to prove that the search was necessary. The court will also contemplate other justifying circumstances.
Application 4: The damages that Resendez experiences are not physical. However, she is probably injured from an emotional and psychological perspective such as anxiety and degradation resulting from the defendant’s detention. Conclusion: Normally the court is unlikely to find Wal-Mart liable for the tort of false imprisonment because the third element does not apply; a reasonable justification was present against Resendez. The defendant was able to provide a valid reason for detaining the plaintiff by considering the peanuts as stolen property. Despite the fact that a justification was identifiable, Salinas has defense options available if the rule was proved otherwise.
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