Richards v. Wisconsin, 520 U.S. 385 (1997) FACTS: Madison, Wisconsin police officers obtained a search warrant for Richards’ hotel room because they had suspicion that he was committing the felony crime of possession with the intent to deliver a controlled substance. The police officers failed to “knock and announce” prior to entering the hotel room where they ended up seizing drugs, they approached the hotel room claiming to be maintenance. Once Richards’ saw the police officers at the door, he tried to shut the door and the officers kicked it in. The Wisconsin State Supreme Court expressed the view that when you are executing a search warrant in a felony drug investigation, there is no “knock and announce” requirement. Richards sought to appeal the case and was granted certiorari.
Mapp vs. Ohio In May, 1957 Dollree Mapp’s home was invaded by Cleveland police. The officers were searching for a suspect that bombed the house of Don King that day. The law enforcers never obtained a proper warrant to enter Mapp’s household. In their improper search the officers never found the bombing suspect but did find gun, gambling paraphernalia, and obscene literature. Dollree was arrested for the possession of lewd and lascivious books under the Ohio Revised Code 2905.34-.35 (The Cleveland Memory Project).
They argued, however, that because Miranda had been convicted of a crime in the past, he must have been aware of his rights. The Arizona Supreme Court denied his appeal and upheld his conviction. Miranda then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which reviewed his case in 1966 (Miranda v. Arizona). Decision The Warren Court argued February 28 – March 2, 1966 Did not decide until June 13, 1966 There were 5 votes for Miranda and 4 votes against Chief Justice Warren, ruled that the prosecution could not introduce Miranda's confession as evidence in a criminal trial because “the police had failed to first inform
The conductor called the police and had Plessy arrested immediately; he spent the night in the local jail and was released the next morning on bond. The Citizens Committee had already retained a New York attorney, Albion W. Tourgee, who had worked on civil rights cases for African Americans before. Plessy’s case went to trial a month after his arrest and Tourgee argued that Plessy’s civil rights under the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution had been violated. While Judge John Ferguson had once ruled against separate cars for interstate railroad travel (different states had various outlooks on segregation), he ruled against Plessy in this case because he believed that the state had a right to set segregation policies within its own boundaries. Tourgee took the case to the Louisiana Supreme Court, which upheld Fergusons decision.
The LAPD violated the 4th Amendment when they searched O.J’s house without a search warrant. People believed that they did this in order to take action immediately and plant evidence which would help convict O.J. Mark Fuhrman, the head detective at LAPD in charge of the investigation, was questioned about the planting of evidence at O.J’s residence, pleading the 5th Amendment. In other words, he refused to respond to the questions given to him and chose to exercise his constitutional right to not speak. As an addition to O.J’s defense, Simpson's attorneys questioned Fuhrman about his alleged prior use of racist terms.
The police searched her residence but did not find the bombing suspect.However the police did find obscene materials in the house, and Miss Mapp was placed under arrest. Miss Mapp was found guilty and convicted for the illegal materials found in her residence. All evidence found at Miss Mapp’s residence was in violation of the fourth amendment (no unlawful search and seizures) because they did not have a real search warrant.The police, who possessed no warrant to search Mapp's property had acted unlawfully. Any incriminating evidence found during the search should, therefore, be thrown out of court and her conviction overturned. If the 4th Amendment did not limit the prerogatives of police on the local and State level, local law enforcement would have a mandate to search wherever, whenever, and whomever they pleased.
Evidence seized by private parties is not excluded from trial if the search was not in the direction of law enforcement officers. If a criminal defendant testifies in his or her own defense, illegally seized evidence may be used to impeach the defendant’s testimony. Evidence seized in violation of a person’s Fourth Amendment rights may be used in Grand Jury proceedings and civil proceedings. In a grand jury proceeding, illegally seized evidence may not be used if it was obtained in violation of the federal government. In the case of United States v. Herring, the officer arrested the defendant without a proper arrest warrant.
Here are the particulars of the problems of this case; one the DNA collected was not needed for the assault case again in which Mr. King pleaded guilty. The collection of DNA of any prisoner or person convicted of a crime is the law in Maryland. If they did not know that it does not state that any person arrested or an arrestee is to be swab. “Maryland DNA Collection Act”, was enacted to authorize state and local law enforcement authorities to collect DNA samples from persons arrested for a crime of violence, an attempted crime of violence, a burglary or, an attempted burglary.(Pub. Safety Article #2-504(3)).
Numerous stories arose from the shooting. The officers side of the story; at 11:51 a.m., a call was received about a robbery at a store. The dispatcher gives a description of the robber and says the suspect is walking toward the Quick Trip convenience store. At 12:01 p.m. an officer encounters the suspects, Mike Brown and a friend, as they walked down the street. The encounter ends with Brown on the ground with 8 shots in him.
The defendant appealed the manslaughter conviction on the grounds that he could not be liable for the victim’s death as he did not physically kill her. It could be argued that the defendant was right as the victim had been killed by police bullets and not his own. The police officers involved were also negligent as they were accused of taking out the light in the hallway which left them unable to see that the victim was in front of the defendant. The police were found to be negligent and were ordered to pay civil compensation to the victim’s family. However, his appeal was rejected as the defendant’s unlawful and dangerous act directed against the