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.
He contends that his Fourth Amendment right was violated by the warrantless search and seizure in his prison cell. Issues In Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 88 S.Ct. 507, 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967), the Supreme Court enunciated a new standard for determining the limitations of the Fourth Amendment. Until now, this court has not been faced with the problem of applying this new test to searches involving prison inmates. The protection of the Fourth Amendment no longer depends upon "constitutionally protected" places.
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.
Analytical Framework I chose the article “Justices Say GPS Tracker Violated Privacy Rights,” by Adam Liptak that was published January 23, 2012. This is a case about Antoine Jones. I will now discuss how governmental level, political and structural levels of analytical framework can help clarify the article. The Supreme Court opened a case on Antoine Jones who is a night club owner. He was suspected of being part of the cocaine business.
1. Was it appropriate for the attorney to examine the document's metadata? Why or why not? No, it was not appropriate. In NYS, the use of technology to obtain information that may be protected by the attorney-client privilege, would violate the letter and spirit of these Disciplinary Rules.
This is why I like the fourth amendment. In America, the police must have a reason or a document in order to search someone’s house or body. This amendment protects people from unfair laws and rules. In America, our freedom cannot be taken away without a trial when if there is reason to search a person. The Fourth Amendment states that: 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, particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Other misdemeanors under state statute can automatically engage in a lawful search such as a DUI or other arrest able conditions. An officer cannot search your vehicle without the above conditions and cannot search the vehicle because he or she just wants to. An officer who stops a motorist for a minor infraction, such as a speeding violation, generally may not conduct a search (unless, as noted above, there is reason to believe one or more of the car’s occupants is armed or otherwise dangerous).Under the plain view doctrine Officers may lawfully seize evidence of a crime without a search warrant if it is in plain view. For example, if an officer sees a glass pipe with what appears to be drug residue in the backseat after stopping a motorist for running a red light, the officer may seize the pipe. (Find Law Organization 2011).
The free and voluntary rule comprised of the 14th Amendment due process clause the Fifth Amendment clause, the prevailing test representing the law of confessions. Miranda v. Arizona (1966) represents a case law entailing each of the abovementioned amendments in which a suspect not read their rights before questioning would have their case dismissed due to evidence obtained illegally. In addition, if read their Miranda rights and refused enables them to utilize the fourth amendment protection against incriminating themselves. In addition, the defendant typically guaranteed a court appointed attorney. The confession if given upon analyzed to determine if the confession passes the voluntariness test (Soree,
No! Armington’s request to drop the civil lawsuit is fruitless, because the 5th Amendment to the Constitution; double jeopardy also does not apply if the later charge is civil rather than criminal in nature, which involves a different legal standard crimes must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, whereas civil wrongs need only be proven by preponderance of evidence (Harper, 2007). Yes, the other rights inside protects witnesses from being forced to incriminate themselves. To "plead the Fifth" is to refuse to answer a question because the response could provide self-incriminating evidence of an illegal act punishable by fines, penalties or forfeiture. The Double Jeopardy Clause encompasses four distinct prohibitions: subsequent prosecution after acquittal, subsequent prosecution after conviction, subsequent prosecution after certain mistrials, and multiple punishments in the same indictment (Harper, 2007).
Under his counter intelligence program nicknamed the COINTELPRO operation, Hoover unlawfully manipulated and tracked many black leaders. COINTELPRO was designed by the FBI to neutralize political radicals. A whole section of this program was directed at Black Nationalist Hate Groups in 1967 to 1971. The goal of this program was to “expose disrupt, misdirect, discredit or otherwise cancel out the activities of black nationalist, hate type organizations and grouping, their leadership, spokesmen, membership and supporters and to counter their propensity for violence and civil disorder.” There was a long list of African American leaders, group’s television programs and other media that the FBI aimed to wipe out of existence. On the other hand O’Relly mentioned in his book “the last thing he wanted was for the FBI to become a national police force.” (p.64).