Confidential Informants are told to do acts or buy thing that may be illegal, but they are doing it on behalf of the government (Zalman, M. (2011)). The third part is that there has to be a connection between the collected item of evidence and an unlawful act by the officer to get the evidence. The exclusionary rule is an important doctrine supporting the ideals of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The Fourth Amendment gives the people protection under the criminal justice system from unreasonable searches and seizures. The amendment also explains how law enforcement should obtain information by search warrants based on probable cause.
U.S. Supreme Court Search and Seizure: Arizona vs. Gant 1) The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States Constitution protect against unreasonable searches and seizures of a person and a person’s property. In order to conduct a search, the police must have probable cause and generally, a search warrant is required in order for the police to search. When law enforcement conducts a search without a warrant, the search is per se unreasonable. This means there is a presumption that the search was unreasonable and the burden is on the government to demonstrate that the search was reasonable and not illegal. Search Incident to a Lawful Arrest: The rationale behind this exception is that a person who has been arrested may destroy evidence or use some type of concealed weapon against the arresting officer.
Exclusionary Rule Evaluation John Stepney CJA/364 November 5, 2013 Kenneth Overwater Abstract The Fourth Amendment always has protected the three civil rights of liberty, property, and privacy. Under the Fourth Amendment the exclusionary rule was designed to sustain that any evidence that was obtained illegally by government officials is a violation of a defendant's constitutional rights and cannot be used against the defendant in a court of law. The reader will be informed of the rationale and purpose of the exclusionary rule and identify exceptions to the rule. It will also analyze the costs and benefits as well as alternative remedies to the exclusionary rule. Exclusionary Rule Evaluation In the 18th century the exclusionary rule under common law did not allow coerced confessions of defendants to be admitted in trial courts.
Although “ ‘searches and seizures inside a home without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable,’ ” Brigham City v. Stuart , 547 U. S. 398 , this presumption may be overcome when “ ‘the exigencies of the situation’ make the needs of law enforcement so compelling that [a] warrantless search is objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment ,” Mincey v. Arizona , 437 U. S. 385 . One such exigency is the need “to prevent the imminent destruction of evidence.” Brigham City, supra, at 403. Pp. 5–6. (b) Under the “police-created exigency” doctrine, which lower courts have developed as an exception to the exigent circumstances rule, exigent circumstances do not justify a warrantless search when the exigency was “created” or “manufactured” by the conduct of the police.
Plain View/Open Fields Case Study Derrik Green ADJ/275 1/22/2012 Aaliyah Muhammad Plain View/Open Fields Case Study The U.S. Constitution presents individuals the right of freedom from unfavorable seizure and search under the fourth amendment. Investigations are described as a governmental invasion of a place in which an individual carries a sensible as well as a justifiable expectation of solitude. The exercise of governmental command over a person or a thing is called a seizure. Under the fourth amendment the things that will be acceptable will rely only on the situation. There are two types of search and seizure, one would be when the government will acquire a warrant permitting the measures, and the second are the ones justifiable with no warrant.
- cert was granted ISSUE: - Did the FBI violated Katz 4th Amendment Right? (to privacy) HOLDING: - Yes REASONING: - The phone booth should be considered protected when doors are shut but the 4th amend. protects persons not places from unreasonable intrusion. In a public place, a person can have that reasonable expectation (but isn't protected because of plain view) Since the government was electronically listening and recording the conversation, it is constituted as a search & seizure. Under the 4th amend., the absence of a warrant during a search & seizure (they had probable cause as well) evidence should of been inadmissible.
Exclusionary Rule Evaluation Paper Brandy Alston University of Phoenix Criminal Procedure CJA/353 Professor Joseph Wade April 11, 2012 Exclusionary Rule Evaluation Paper Should the exclusionary rule be abolish this question is one not to simple to answer. Many individuals say no other say yes, and for those that do not know what the exclusionary rule is then they do not know their Forth Amendment Right. This makes answering this question harder, the Exclusionary Rule and Fourth Amendment works jointly for the United States and the citizens. The Fourth Amendment in the US Constitution limits the action of official law enforcement and helps keep the public rights from being violated for unreasonable searches or something close in that rang. This paper will define Exclusionary Rule, the rationale and purpose of the Exclusionary rule, the exceptions, cost and benefits and alternative remedies to the Exclusionary Rule and if we should keep or wipe out the Exclusionary Rule.
The source of the exclusionary rule comes from the Supreme Court's 1914 verdict in the case of Weeks vs. U.S. The exclusionary rule basically says that illegally collected evidence will not be permitted in court. The rule was first used in the 1961 case of Mapp vs. Ohio. The exclusionary rule comes from the Fourth Amendment's safeguard against illegal searches and seizure of evidence or belongings. The exclusionary rule has typically been utilized to stop prosecutors and law enforcement from unlawfully collecting evidence.
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
Imagine a society where the rights of individuals are not protected. A law enforcement agency can search a person’s telephone, e-mail communications, medical, financial, and other records. If they suspect any terrorism-related acts, they can detain anyone indefinitely. This is Patriot Act. Even though advocates claim that the Patriot Act helps to protect the national security, the Patriot Act is unjust.