Supreme Court Case: US V. Calandra 1974
In the case US v. Calandra (1974), Calandra was being questioned by the federal grand jury about loan sharking business. The reason the jury was asking these question were based on the evidence obtained at his company. Calandra didn’t want to answer any questions because he felt that the search of the company was an unlawful search and that it violated his fourth amendment exclusionary rule. The refusal to answer the grand jury, was what was being question about this case. Calandra felt like because of the exclusionary rule unde0r the fourth amendment he didn’t have to answer but he was wrong. The supreme court held that the exclusionary rule was only applicable in criminal courts and was not meant to be seen as a right but as a way to reduce unreasonable searches and seizures conducted by police ("Oyez: US v. Calandra," n.d.).
Stone v. Powell (1976) was convicted of murder in the state of California. Powell claimed that the search against him was unlawful so the gun found on him should have been inadmissible in court. He tried to file a writ of habeas corpus but a state prisoner is not granted that right since the state provided him with a full and …show more content…
Evans (1995), the respondent was stopped because of a routine traffic stop. The officer’s computer indicated that there was a misdemeanor warrant out for the respondent’s arrest. The officer search his car and found marijuana in it, so the officer charged him with possession. The respondent tried to have the marijuana suppressed as evidence since his warrant had been squashed since before the arrest. This was denied because the purpose of the exclusionary rule wouldn't be served if they dismissed evidence that was obtained by error of employees. These employees were not directly associated with the arresting officer. So the arresting officer had no way of knowing that the misdemeanor warrant wasn't valid. Since the error was a clerical error exclusionary rule was not applied to suppress the
Stone v. Powell (1976) was convicted of murder in the state of California. Powell claimed that the search against him was unlawful so the gun found on him should have been inadmissible in court. He tried to file a writ of habeas corpus but a state prisoner is not granted that right since the state provided him with a full and …show more content…
Evans (1995), the respondent was stopped because of a routine traffic stop. The officer’s computer indicated that there was a misdemeanor warrant out for the respondent’s arrest. The officer search his car and found marijuana in it, so the officer charged him with possession. The respondent tried to have the marijuana suppressed as evidence since his warrant had been squashed since before the arrest. This was denied because the purpose of the exclusionary rule wouldn't be served if they dismissed evidence that was obtained by error of employees. These employees were not directly associated with the arresting officer. So the arresting officer had no way of knowing that the misdemeanor warrant wasn't valid. Since the error was a clerical error exclusionary rule was not applied to suppress the