Preview

Crj: 201 Law Enforcement

Good Essays
Open Document
Open Document
871 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Crj: 201 Law Enforcement
Constitutional Policing

Constitutional Policing
When an officer of the law violates the law in which it enforces it creates mayhem and they lose the trust of the people. By obeying the laws just like the rest of the United States, they gain the social legitimacy that is needed in communities.
Weeks Vs. United States
Weeks. Vs. The United States was the case where Fremont Weeks filed suit against the United States for illegally entering his home and seizing papers that were used in his conviction of transporting lottery tickets through the mail. While at work one day the police went to his home, found the key to his home, and entered. After searching his room for evidence the police left with articles and papers that were then turned over to the U.S. Marshal’s. Later the Marshal as well as the police came back to his home and were let in by someone else. They left with additional evidence and neither of them had any type of search warrant. (www.casebriefs.com)
The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution states: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable search 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 seized.” The main issue in this case was whether or not Weeks’ Fourth Amendment rights were violated.
The biggest thing about this case was the creation of the "exclusionary rule". That means that the evidence that was collected and obtained was in violation of the Fourth Amendment and is now inadmissible in trial. Mr. Weeks’ house was entered while he was not there and there was not a warrant. Anything that the Marshal’s or police found there cannot be used to incriminate him. The Court claimed that without the exclusionary rule, "the protection of the Fourth Amendment… is of no value". The important thing to know about this case is



References: http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/criminal-procedure/criminal-procedure-keyed-to-saltzburg/searches-and-seizures-of-persons-and-things/mapp-v-ohio-3/ http://library.thinkquest.org/2760/weeks.htm http://www.phschool.com/atschool/ss_web_codes/supreme_court_cases/weeks.html http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1946214737793111775&q=Silverthorne%20Lumber%20&hl=en&as_sdt=2,15&as_vis=1 |

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Good Essays

    4th Amendment protects your right against unreasonable search and seizure of property, papers, or people without valid probable cause…

    • 791 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Dollree Mapp Case Study

    • 452 Words
    • 2 Pages

    Mapp argued that the police had no warrant to be able to access and search her property and she believed that all evidence found should be discarded since it violated the 4th amendment, which states that “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.”…

    • 452 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Ohio we are instead dealing with state constitutional law and not on the federal level. On May 23, 1957 three officers arrived as a two family dwelling in which Miss. Mapp resided on the second floor with her daughter from a previous marriage. The police were at the residence in search of a person of interest in a recent bombing and information pertaining to the bombing. The police made illegal entry into Miss. Mapp’s home and with her in custody began to search her home. There were claims of excessive force and Miss. Mapp was not allowed to speak with her attorney whom was on scene when police entry was made. Evidence was collected from various locations around Miss. Mapp’s home and she was placed under arrest. Even at her trial no search warrant was produced nor was there an explanation as to why one could not be produced. The state of Ohio claimed even if the search were made without authority, or otherwise unreasonably, it is not prevented from using the unconstitutionally seized evidence at trial. (MAPP vs. OHIO, 1961) The state cited Wolf vs. Colorado in which the courts found “that in a prosecution in a State court for a State crime the Fourteenth Amendment does not forbid the admission of evidence obtained by an unreasonable search and seizure." (MAPP vs. OHIO, 1961) If the case had been tried in a federal court the evidence obtained in the search would not have been admissible, however since it was tried on the state level the exclusionary…

    • 1121 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    The 4th amendment states that people have a right to have privacy. If a police officer or any law enforcement comes to your house without a warrant and seized something in your possession they broke a law. Something like this happened in 1984.…

    • 497 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Roy Olmstead was accused of importing and possessing illegal liquors back in 1927. He was later proved guilty by wiretaps installed in his basement. Olmstead tried saying that his 4th and 5th amendment were violated, but in conclusion his 4th amendment rights were not infringed because mere wiretapping does not qualify under a search or seizure. To be searched means that they would physically have to be there searching for something without a warrant that is. They are allowed to do so with a warrant. The vote behind his rights were 5-4 not in his favor. So he was later detained and arrested by the police. In this court case the officials learned a lot about how they should think, they decided that they should not back down in that sort of situation…

    • 160 Words
    • 1 Page
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    Search and Seize Paper

    • 742 Words
    • 3 Pages

    The most famous search and seizure is Mapp v. Ohio. This case happens back in 1961, March 29 and end on June 19, 1961. Which were an unreasonable searches and seizures what relates on the fourth Amendment. When the police received a tip that Dollree Mapp and her daughter were harboring a suspected bombing fugitive, they immediately went to her house and demanded entrance. Mapp called her attorney and under his advice she refused to give them entry because they did not have a warrant. Later on that day more officers came to her door and demanded that they be allowed to enter her house. After Mapp refused, they opened a door to the house through forced entry. Knock down her door completely. Mapp confronted them and demanded to see the search warrant. The police waved a piece of paper in the air claiming it was the warrant and Mapp grabbed it and put it down her shirt. The police eventually got the "warrant" back from Mapp. Also when the cop took the paper back for the warrant for her Mapp was taking a deep thought on how was that was right for him to not let her see the information about the warrant. Next, Mapp was cuffed her feet and went on to search her entire house for the fugitive. When they reached her basement they found a trunk containing a small collection of pornographic books, pictures, and photographs. Mapp said the trunk was left in the basement by a previous tenant and was not aware of its contents. The officers arrested Mapp for violating an Ohio law which prohibited the possession of obscene material. On her arrest she knows the laws for Ohio but they didn’t even give her time to discuss or tell who use to live in their home before her. No fugitive or any evidence of one was ever found at the house. Nothing but pic what Mapp didn’t have a clue who they belong to. At her trial in the Court room, Mapp was charged based on the evidence that was presented by the police. Mapp's attorney questioned the police about the…

    • 742 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Horton v California

    • 648 Words
    • 3 Pages

    The issue being brought up is if the evidence recovered was able to be used against Horton during the case. Justice Stevens discusses to the court and explains “Whether the warrantless seizure of evidence of crime in plain view is prohibited by the Fourth Amendment if the discovery of the evidence was not inadvertent.” The main issue in this case and other similar cases is the “plain-view” aspect of them. If the warrant does not describe or authorize you to recover weapons or other evidence are you allowed to recover them if you come upon them? Then if recovered is it allowed to be used in court as evidence against the…

    • 648 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    The land mark Supreme Court ruling on Mapp v Ohio changed the way people thought of the fourth amendment and how it could be applied to protect the individual form unlawful search and seizure. Previously the law surrounding the fourth amendment’s protection from unjust searches was extremely enigmatic. Its application varied form case to case until the Weeks rule was enacted in 1914. The Supreme Court ruled that evidence obtained via an illegal search and seizure was not admissible in federal court. However the Supreme Court did not make the states adopt the Weeks rule. The legal loop hole it created made it legal for states to present and prosecute with evidence detained in an unconstitutional tactic. In Mapp v Ohio a case that brought all the questions into the spotlight. On May 23, 1957, three Cleveland police officers arrived at appellant's residence in that city perusing information that "a person [was] hiding out in the home, who was wanted for questioning in connection with a recent bombing, and that there was a large amount of policy paraphernalia being hidden in the home." Ms. Mapp was living with her daughter when the police officers arrived and demanded entrance to her home. After consulting her attorney she did…

    • 1445 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution states: Prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and sets out requirements for search warrants based on probable cause. This amendment impacts law enforcement because police need a warrant to make arrests and searches. This is not applicable if the officer has first-hand knowledge of an event and the evidence is likely to be destroyed or the subject will abscond if time is taken to get a warrant. If a warrantless search is made by the police that should have been made only after a warrant was issued, then all knowledge gained by that evidence is not allowed in testimony.…

    • 868 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Today I am going to describe the issues facing police departments in today’s society. This is something that everyone has with their police departments in different states and how they work out.…

    • 486 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    Actus rea and mens rea are both important elements to convicting anyone for any crime. The actual commitment of a criminal act is actus rea. The guilty or criminal mind state is mens rea. Despite the fact that both actus rea and mens rea do not have to exist a conviction is still very feasible. When a criminal act is committed and the individual does not have to mens rea or guilty mind in some instances without the required mental state no crime is committed. Persons incapable of entertaining the required criminal mind because of legal insanity have not committed a crime. Working with individuals who have been diagnosis with mental retardation has really opened my mind to the element of mens rea when the individual has done something illegal. Some of the individuals have it in their mind that because the have been diagnosis with mental retardation they can not be held responsible for the criminal act they may commit or have committed, I have even heard many of the individuals say it. Does this mental state qualify them of the required state of mind for conviction?…

    • 964 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    Us Govt. 4 5

    • 798 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Gideon v. Wainwright- Back when legal counsel was available for murder, giving civil rights to people that cannot support counsel. He was accused of theft just for being there, and since he couldn't afford counsel the states gave it to him. he was later set free.…

    • 798 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Please research and explain landmark case, such as Mapp v. Ohio, Terry v. Ohio, etc.…

    • 511 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    The exclusionary rule prevents evidence obtained by the criminal justice system in violation of the Fourth Amendment guarantee against unreasonable search or seizure is not allowable to prove the guilt of an accused person in a criminal prosecution. However, the primary purpose of the rule is to deter police misconduct by preventing the gathering of evidence in violation of the Fourth Amendment (Del Carmen, 2010). The rule also strengthens the protections offered by the Fourth Amendment by allowing defendants a means to object to illegally obtained evidence. The rule originally applied to federal courts only. However, the decision of the United States Supreme Court in the case of Mapp v. Ohio (1961) incorporated the inclusion of state courts for using the exclusionary rule from the Fourteenth Amendment to include the protections of the Fourth Amendment thereby requiring the state courts to provide the protections of the Bill of Rights to defendants. This…

    • 1118 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Better Essays

    The Police and Corruption

    • 1417 Words
    • 6 Pages

    people. The police is a government service to all people, but all people do not…

    • 1417 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Better Essays