Katz v US 389 US 347 (1967) PROCEDURAL HISTORY: - Katz was convicted under a fed. statute of transmitting wagering info by a telephone across state lines. (boston, massachusetts, and miami, florida) - court of appeals affirmed conviction - supreme court granted cert. and reversed conviction FACTS: - katz was seen using 3 bank telephone booths during certain hours and on a daily basis ( never used any other booth) - Feb 19-25 @ set hours, Special Agents from the FBI placed microphones in 2 booths used by katz since the 3rd one was out of order - conversations were about Katz placed bets and obtaining gambling info - @ trial, evidence was introduced - Katz wanted to suppress evidence under the 4th amendment - petition to suppress was denied - court of appeal rejected the disagreement that evidence was inadmissible. - cert was granted ISSUE: - Did the FBI violated Katz 4th Amendment Right?
1. In emergency circumstances, the police have the lawful right to enter a private residence without a search. Does this exception apply when police create the emergency circumstances through their own lawful actions such as knocking on a door? 2. When does lawful police action impermissibly create exigent circumstances which prelude warrantless entry; and which of the five tests currently being used by United States Courts of Appeals is proper to determine when impermissibly created exigent circumstances exist?
PA253 Legal Ethics | Unit 3 Assignment | | Monet Braud June 30, 2015 | In 2008, a man named Alton Logan was released from prison after serving 26 years in prison for the 1982 slaying of a security guard at a Chicago McDonald’s. That fact alone is shocking enough, but add to that, Alton Logan was innocent, and the statement becomes unbelievable. But even more unbelievable is that two lawyers, Dale Coventry and Jamie Kunz, knew who the real killer was and remained silent. In 1982, they watched while Logan was tried, convicted, and sentenced to life in prison. Dale Coventry and Jamie Kunz were the lawyers of the actual killer, Andrew Wilson.
The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads as follows: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized[1] (Constitution, 1789).” b. The flip side is that the Fourth Amendment does permit searches and seizures that are considered reasonable. According to http://criminal.findlaw.com/, in most instances a police officer may not search or seize an individual or his or
Exclusionary Rule Evaluation CJA/364 Exclusionary Rule Evaluation When an individual examines the exclusionary rule, components have to be taken into account in order to determine a meaning or justification for the law enforcement to obey by. This rule does not have anything to do with the fourth amendment although there are similar. For years the exclusionary rule has been used in order to understand how evidence is gathered and apprehended. This essay will explain the evaluation of the exclusionary rule, the exceptions, advantages and disadvantages to the rule. Although the examination of the exclusionary rule may constitute deterrence for law enforcement, the rule still may be considered constitution although its existence (Zalman, M. (2011)).
For example, there was a “man [who was] sentenced to prison for 25 years to life under the law for stealing a bottle of vitamins” (Murphy). In March 1999, when the Three Strikes law was challenged by this case, the Supreme Court “refused to hear” (Murphy) a word that was said by the people. By putting them in prison for an excessive amount of years, housing for serious offenders is being made unavailable which will lead to an increase “to an already overcrowded and expensive prison system” (Messerli). Some of the people may have committed the innocuous crime to help their spouse and children. When used, the Three Strikes law treats all crimes the exact same way, which makes the law unjust.
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.
At what stage in the criminal justice process does double jeopardy attach itself to the proceedings? . Double Jeopardy attaches when the jury is empanelled, the first witness is sworn, or a plea is accepted. Once jeopardy has attached, the full array of the Fifth Amendment protections against multiple prosecutions and multiple punishments takes hold. The double jeopardy clause in the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution forbids the government from prosecuting individuals more than one time for a single offense and from imposing more than one punishment for a single act.
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. It did not protect defendants from evidence that government officials seized during illegal searches from trials. Weeks v. United States (1914) held that the exclusionary rule was a part of the Fourth Amendment, and any illegally seized evidence cannot be used against the defendant. The decision made the exclusionary rule a constitutional requirement, but it did not bind states. Incorporating the rule to the state level was initiated in 1961 by way of the opinion of Mapp v. Ohio.
Although not explicitly stated in the Bill of Rights, the court has held that they are constitutionally protected. The Bill of Rights has "penumbras," created by "emanations from these guarantees that help give them life and opinion", and guarantee “zones of privacy” for individuals. These privacy rights are derived from the First Amendment’s right of association, the Third Amendment’s quartering of soldiers (spatial privacy), the Fourth Amendment’s unreasonable search and seizure