It applies to evidence gained from an unreasonable search or seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment (Mapp v. Ohio, 1961). If evidence falls within the scope of the exclusionary rule led law enforcement to other evidence, which they would not otherwise have located, then the exclusionary rule applies to the related evidence found subsequent to the excluded evidence as well. Such subsequent evidence has taken on the name of “fruit of the poisonous tree” (Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 1920). The Exclusionary Rule is a court-created remedy and deterrent, not an independent constitutional right. Courts will not apply the rule to exclude illegally gathered evidence where the costs of exclusion outweigh its deterrent or remedial benefits.
It states that no object may be used in court as evidence if obtained illegally or without a proper search warrant. Legal questions to be addressed by the court: Whether the exclusionary rule is appropriate for violation of the knock-and-announce requirement? The decision of the court: With a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court found that the exclusionary rule is not appropriate for violations of the knock and announce rule. The Court noted that a knock-notice violation is rarely the “but-for” cause of obtaining inculpatory evidence. Consequently, when the police violate knock-notice rules by not announcing their presence or waiting sufficient time before forcing their way in),
Others may think the exclusionary rule should not be used to enforce the Fourth Amendment. They feel at times it is necessary for the exclusionary rule to not be used. I can understand their position because they are looking at putting the accused defendant behind bars and make sure they are punished to the fullest. At times without the exclusionary rule, the case in court can succeed and get the result the prosecution and maybe even what the public want. Sometimes people feel the defendant has too many rights and has more benefits, which could help them get away with criminal activity.
Therefore, the executive, legislative, and judicial branch will enforce S.397 to protect firearm industries and our legal system from those attempting to hold them accountable for their criminal or unlawful misuse of firearms or ammunition products. Many people that are injured by firearms or use certain types of ammunition will not be able to hold makers or sellers responsible for the user’s accident or act that resulted in an injury or death. Many lawsuits that were brought to court before the PLCAA were majority criminal cases which resulted with dismissals because the courts believed that manufacturers should be held liable for the acts of criminal cases. Some difficulties or loopholes that can possibly prevent the PLCAA from being enforced is if a consumer or victim claims that the firearm product could have prevented an injury or death if it had specific safety regulations such as:
Since Mapp and other significant decisions, innocent people have been subjected to fewer unconstitutional searches, not necessarily because the police fear the exclusion of evidence but because of the potential for civil liability, citizen complaints, and the like. The rules of law decided in Mapp v. Ohio relate to the relevant facts in the fact pattern based on the Fourth Amendment violation. Det. Quickdraw is a representative for the government, but he failed to uphold the law by not following the correct criminal procedure for search and seizure. In conclusion, if I were the judge ruling in this case, I could apply the exclusionary rule and any evidence that was obtained during the unlawful search would not be admissible.
United States, Petitioner v. Alberto Antonio LEON et al. Respondent No 82-1771. Argued Jan. 17, 1984 Decided July 5, 1984 Rehearing Denied Sept. 18, 1984. 468 U.S. 897 (1984) The case presents the question whether the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule should be modified so as not to defame from use in the prosecution’s case in chief of evidence obtained by officer’s action acting in reasonable reliance on a search warrant signed and issued by a detached and neutral magistrate, which was found not supporting by probable cause. The question presented at hand is misfeasance, officers acting lawfully , the defendant on the other hand, stated officers acted improper by their performance invading on defendants privacy and, on the Fourth Amendment, officers removing indispensable evidence
David Gray CJUS 200 Application Essay 2-15-14 Can you seize the marijuana plants at that time? If yes, what is your legal justification for doing so? If no, what legally prohibits you from doing so? No, as a police officer you would not be able to seize the marijuana plants at this time, by doing so you would be violating the rights of the citizens of the house that was entered due to the noise ordinance. Actually, the fourth amendment would actually keep you from doing so because it states that “every citizen right to be free from unreasonable government intrusion into their persons, homes, businesses, and property –whether through police stops of citizens on the street, arrests, or searches of homes and businesses”.
Many people do not know they have the right to say no to a search even if they are innocent. “The greater the restraint on an individual’s freedom of movement, the more a police encounter will seem like a seizure” (Robinson, 2004). Another exception to the fourth amendment is exigent circumstances and according to Denise Robinsons article Kaupp v. Texas: Breathing life into the fourth amendment she says that “in some cases, a warrant is not necessary if both probable cause and exigent circumstances are present at the time of the seizure” (2004). Exigent circumstances are important because an officer “believes that getting a warrant will create the risk of injury or death or result in the destruction of evidence” (Davenport, 2009, p. 376). A good example is when an officer is in pursuit of a moving vehicle or chasing after a suspect, if they do not seize the suspect, all the evidence that is on the suspect could
This amendment restricts their course of action during a criminal investigation (Fourth Amendment, 2013). However, it also bans unreasonable searches and seizures in the context of civil litigation (Fourth Amendment, 2013). A search may only be conducted if suspicion is the motivation to do so (Fourth Amendment, 2013). Under the Fourth Amendment, generalized searches are prohibited unless circumstances which place the general public in jeopardy (Fourth Amendment, 2013). If an individual wants to sue regarding a supposed Fourth Amendment violation, they must have a standing (Fourth Amendment, 2013).
The case went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court where they said that prior restraint, except in rare cases, is unconstitutional for violating the First Amendment. However, it cited when prior restraint can be used, including that, “…primary requirements of decency may be enforced against obscene publications.” Minnesota lawmakers were later able to shut down Neal’s paper for