Arizona (1978), the police collected evidence for four days after the suspect’s apprehension and the death of a police officer at the time of the arrest. He was convicted for murder, assault and narcotics offences. However, because they collected the evidence without a warrant, the suspect’s conviction on the murder of the police officer and assault charges was reversed by the Arizona Supreme Court, but upheld the narcotics conviction. This is a prime example of where the Fourth Amendment protects against unlawful searches. Even though the evidence was overwhelming proof that the suspect murdered the police officer, it was the responsibility of the police to do their due diligence to conduct the search legally. Had they obtained the proper warrants, the conviction would have still been upheld and the suspect would have been punished for the crime he…
Mapp vs. ohio: The surrounding of the case was the police came in her house try to find a bomb suspect they found the bomb suspect but they also found pornograph pics of her self so she was arrested that day. The supreme court's decision was that when a police officer is searching you or your house they have to specify what they are looking for. The courts decision maid a big change because the cops if they come in your house looking for a gun but they find a knife they cant arrest you for it because they have to specify what they are looking for.…
Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 1081, 81 S. Ct. 1684, 6 L. Ed. 2d 1081 (1961)…
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.).…
The case Arizona vs. Grant occured because an event that happened on August 25, 1999 involving two police officers, and a suspect who was believed to be involved in narcotics activity. The officers first visit to the house where the suspect lived was followed by a second visit later that night because he wasnt there at the initial visit. After their first visit they ran a background check and found causes for the arrest of the subject, Rodney Grant. Upon the second return the subject Rodney Grant was apprehended after pulling into his driveway and walking about ten feet towards the officers. After they placed him in the police vehicle, they searched the suspects car, which was the cause of the Arizona vs Grant case, because of a debate on evidence pulled from the car without reasonable reasons to search it. Although there was cocaine and a weapons in the car, the officers didnt have reasons to prove why the searched it after the suspect had already been apprehended and put into the police vehicle. It is because of this that led to questioning of why the car was searched because Grant was not in the nearby vicinity of the vehicle and therefore no harm to the officers unless he had a weapons in his immediate possession.…
Mapp v. Ohio, noteworthy court case of 1961. The US Supreme Court decided that when the state officers attained evidence through illegal searches and seizures might not be admissible into criminal trials. The case was about a Cleveland lady, Dolly Mapp, who was held for having obscene materials. Law enforcement had learned the materials in Dolly Mapp house during their illegal search. When the state convicted, Dolly Mapp appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Her argument was that her constitutional rights was violated under the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution, that prohibits unjust searches and seizures. “The U.S. Supreme Court accepted her appeal and consented to her argument. They stated that any illegally obtained evidence should…
Mapp v. Ohio is an important case that made history. For the reason it has to do the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment. All evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Federal Constitution is inadmissible in a criminal trial in a state court. Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U. S. 25, overruled insofar as it holds to the contrary. Pp. 367 U. S. 643-660.…
The exclusionary rule prohibits illegally obtained evidence from being used in a criminal trial (Hall, 2015). Furthermore, the exclusionary rule applies to prevent unconstitutionally obtained evidentiary submissions, and the rule is applicable to items or confessions (Hall, 2015). After reviewing the exclusionary rule I feel it should be applied to illegal arrests too, unless the police obtain sufficient evidence independent of the illegal arrest. In the case of State v. Eserjose police made an illegal arrest of the defendant for second-degree burglary; however, during an interview the Mr. Eserjose was read his Miranda rights, and he chose to waive his rights, ultimately confessing to the burglary (Ma, 2013). Subsequently, Mr. Eserjose’s…
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…
Would one feel safe in their neighborhood knowing that guilty criminals are being let free every second? The exclusionary rule prohibits the use of illegally obtained evidence in a criminal trail. There are many exclusions to the rule, which brings up the question of why the rule should even be carried out in the first place. Since the exclusionary rule is not stated in the constitution alternatives and changes can be made to the rule. A controversial topic always has people on both the pro and con side. Arguments against the rule convince many citizens that the exclusionary rule has little impact in the judicial world.…
The exclusionary rule is intended to reject prove acquired disregarding a criminal litigant's Fourth Amendment rights. The Fourth Amendment ensures against irrational quests and seizures by law requirement work force. On the off chance that the hunt of a criminal suspect is preposterous, the proof acquired in the pursuit will be rejected from trial.The exclusionary administer is a court-made run the show. This implies it was made not in statutes go by authoritative bodies but instead by the U.S. Incomparable Court. The exclusionary control applies in government courts by goodness of the Fourth Amendment. The Court has decided that it applies in state courts in spite of the fact that the due procedure condition of the Fourteenth Amendment.(The Bill of Rights—the…
The exclusionary rule is designed 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. If the search of a criminal suspect is unreasonable, the evidence obtained in the search will be excluded from trial.…
The understanding of the Fourth Amendment in the U.S. Constitution and its relevance for searches and seizures is critical for any investigator, and it strikes a balance between individual liberties and the rights of society. Most importantly, the limitation on any search is that the scope must be narrow, if a search is not conducted legally, the evidence obtained is worthless. As a matter of fact, the exclusionary rule established that courts may not accept evidence obtained by unreasonable search and seizure, regardless of its relevance to a case.…
The exclusionary rule is a law that prohibits the use of illegally obtained evidence in a criminal trial. Now imagine how our system would function without the exclusionary rule. A police officer could detain, arrest or search an individual and his property based on bias, a hunch or because they just felt like it, without reasonable cause. If the officer discovered in criminating evidence, it could be freely admitted at the individual’s criminal trial. And that evidence that is found without the search warrant would be eligible even though it was found unlawfully. The officer would have no incentive to comply with Fourth Amendment restrictions. The imprecise possibility of civil law suits or department discipline would not discourage the misconduct of the police.…
On Halloween, I was going to go trick-or-treating with my friends. We had been planning this all week, and when the day finally arrived, I texted them and asked when they were coming over. Well, one of my friends, Sally, said her other friend, Hanna, who was going to go with us, decided she didn’t want to go with us. So Sally was going to ditch me and go with Hanna. I was pretty mad and sad about my situation, but I was happy to know that my other friend, Penny, would come.…