The court rejected the Government’s suggestion that the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule should not apply where evidence is seized in reasonable good-faith reliance on a search warrant. Procedural History: In August 1981, acting on a tip from a confidential informant, officers of the Burbank Police Department began an extensive investigation by surveillance at Respondents’ residences involving drug-trafficking. Respondents Armando Sanchez and Patsy Stewart were identified to be selling large quantities of cocaine and methaqualone from their residence. A check of one of the individuals, Richardo Del Castillo, led officers to Respondent Alberto Leon who had prior arrests for drug charges and was heavily involved in the importation of drugs into this country. Based off of the police officers’ observations and activities at their homes, Officer Cyril Rombach, an experienced, narcotics investigator, prepared an affidavit for a warrant
Alfonzo then appealed arrest and said this law is unconstitutional Lopez believed that the laws went past the power of the United States Congress. His first defense failed and the court ruled and said that Congress had the right and authority to regulate school activities throughout the United States. Alfonzo was convicted for carrying a weapon to school. Then Alfonzo appealed the initial decision and then he brought the case to the Fifth Circuit of Appeals which is a court composed of seventeen active judges John Minor Wisdom United States Court of Appeal which is located in New Orleans, Louisiana. Alfonzo once again claimed that Commerce Clause which is basically where Congress is granted separate power, which Alfonzo thought was a direct violation of the Constitution Of The Unites States.
After taken to trial, the prosecutor's case “consisted solely of his confession” to obtain a conviction. The Maricopa County Superior Court convicted Miranda of both rape and kidnapping and was then sentenced to 20 to 30 years in prison. Miranda appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court, claiming that “the police had unconstitutionally obtained his confession” as well as the absence of an attorney during the interrogation and should have been excluded from trial. The police officers involved admitted that they had not given Miranda any explanation of his rights. They argued, however, that because Miranda had been convicted of a crime in the past, he must have been aware of his rights.
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’s where the issue comes into play. Mr. King admitted his guilt and pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor. Officials of the corrections department collected Mr. King’s DNA. This is a state law, but unfortunately for Mr. King his DNA came back linked to a crime of rape in 2003. 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.
We have a case brought to us to decide whether the excessive bail ban of the 8th Amendment should be incorporated to the states. We have, in this case, a decision whether the excessive bail portion of the 8th amendment. The petitioner recently was arrested on suspicion of selling illegal narcotics. We are hearing this case in part because the petitioner has appealed arguing that the bail of $500,000 set is in opposition to the 8th amendment’s bar against excessive fines. Moreover, the petitioner appeals that the due process clause of the 14th amendment should be applied in this case arguing against his claim of excessive bail.
in Findlaw.com) and “sitting without a jury” a California Superior Court found him to be “in violation of the California Health and Safety Code, 1947, 11,500” (Findlaw). This conviction depended on the evidence of the “two capsules” that were allowed to be admitted over the objection of Rochin. Believing that his rights had been violated, Rochin appealed to the District Court of Appeal and was denied. Although there were revelations of various “violations of constitutional rights” (qtd. in Findlaw.com) during the obtainment of evidence, one of the three judges said he “felt bound by the decisions of his Supreme Court” (Findlaw) to uphold the conviction.
The Weeks case pertained to an appeal by a defendant who was convicted of transporting lottery tickets through the mail. The conviction was based on evidence gathered after law enforcement officers searched the defendant’s home without a warrant and seized the evidence illegally. The defendant’s conviction was overturned by the Supreme Court and this created what we now know as the exclusionary rule. It was in the case of Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961), that the Supreme Court made the rule germane to the states. Justice Day said, "The tendency of those who execute the criminal laws of the country to obtain convictions by means of unlawful searches and enforced confessions .
His defense attorney argued that the statute in which he had been indicted was unconstitutional. Since Wynehamer had legally purchased his liquors before the enactment of the statute, he was being denied his right to dispose of his property as he saw fit. The court disagreed and found the Wynehamer guilty. Wynehamer appealed the judgment, which was then upheld by the Supreme Court. The case was then sent to be reviewed by the court of
Criminal Law Paper Carolyn Waddell-Tillman 354 February 7, 2014 Professor William Heiman Criminal Law Paper Arrest Search and Investigation DNA Cheek Swab Maryland v. King, 569 U.S._ (June 3, 2003) The defendant was arrested in 2009 for menacing a group of people with a shotgun, the defendant was charged in state court with assault, where he was processed for detention custody at a central booking facility. Booking personnel used a cheek swab to take the DNA sample from him pursuant to the Maryland DNA Collection Act. His DNA was uploaded into the Maryland DNA database and matched a 2003 sample from an unsolved rape case. He was charged and convicted in the rape case (criminallawresources.com) What interested me about this