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.
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.
The exclusionary rule is to exclude evidence obtained in violation of a criminal defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights. The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures by law enforcement personnel. The exclusionary rule is a court-made rule. This means that it was created not in statutes passed by legislative bodies but rather by the U.S. Supreme Court. The exclusionary rule applies in federal courts of the Fourth Amendment.
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.
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.
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.
Legal Defense Justification and excuse is the two forms of legal defense. Justification is when the defendant admits to committing the act in question but claims it was necessary in order to avoid some greater evil. Whereas, excuse is when a defendant claims some personal condition or circumstance at the time of the act was such that he or she should not be held accountable under the criminal law (Schmalleger, Hall,
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.
Reflections on the First Amendment HIS301 United States Constitution Reflections on the First Amendment The First Amendment; what is the significance of the three provisions the rights and responsibilities it gives the American people. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. The first Amendment gives cause for many court cases with the dealing of separation of religion and state freedom of speech you would think that one case would be more than enough to cover it but form looking at the cases it maybe rather