DQ 1: Racial minorities comprise a very small proportion of the lawyers and judges in the United States. What accounts for this? What difference, if any, would it make if more of the lawyers representing criminal defendants were racial minorities?…
The Rule Day Club began in 1932 during the final year of prohibition, and the beginning years of the great depression. This club acquired its name because it met on the second Monday of every month, which at the time was colloquially known as “Rule Day” or the day “the law made certain writs returnable after service to the civil common law courts in Baltimore.” Unlike the Lawyers’ Round Table—which respected the legal restraints imposed by prohibition—the members of the Rule Day Club “freely imbibed” on the grounds that liquor was an “institutionalized ritual.” Indeed, the Rule Day Club was founded at Congressman John Philip Hill’s rowhome at 3 West Franklin Street, which the congressman had conveniently renamed “Franklin Farms” in order to…
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…
“Mere Evidence” The Exclusionary Rule Determining What is Inadmissible – Fruit of the Poisonous…
Justice Black also believes the command that no unreasonable searches or seizures be allowed is too little to infer such a large decision. With these differences aside Justice Black feels that along with previous court decisions that the "Fourth Amendment's ban against unreasonable searches and seizures is considered together with the Fifth Amendment's ban against compelled self-incrimination, a constitutional basis emerges which not only justifies, but actually requires the exclusionary…
The definition of the exclusionary rule was a principle of law that illegally obtained evidence may not be admitted in court. The exclusionary rule was one of the few laws the court system had made to enforce the Forth Amendment’s unreasonable search and seizure clause. The many exceptions and alternatives to the rule caused major controversy over why the rule even stands.…
The exclusionary rules are included in the Fourth Amendment which is to protect citizens from illegal searches and seizure. As such, it prohibits police officers to use evidence…
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…
In Florida v. Jimeno, 500 U.S. 248, 251, 111 S.Ct. 1801, 1803-04 (1991) the Supreme Court held that a criminal suspect's right to be free from unreasonable searches was not violated when, after he gave a police officer permission to search his car, the officer opened a dosed container found within the car. Consent to search a vehicle inherently encompasses the entire vehicle and its contents, including closed containers. Id. The scope of the search extends to any…
The exclusionary rule is a legal principle in the United States, under constitutional law, which holds that evidence collected or analyzed in violation of the defendant's constitutional rights is sometimes inadmissible for a…
Although intended to improve U.S. society, Prohibition actually corrupted society with higher crime and negative impact within families. Prohibition officially started with ratification of the 18th amendment on January 16, 1920 when it banned the manufacture and sale of alcoholic drinks (clarified by the Volstead Act which defined alcoholic drinks as any beverage that was more than .5% alcohol by volume). Prohibition eventually ended 13 years later in 1933. Prohibition was known as the “noble experiment.” Organizations such as the Anti-Saloon League and the Women’s Christian Temperance Union thought that banning alcohol would reduce drunkenness, crime and poverty. The Volstead Act stated “any item designed to manufacture alcohol was illegal” and set…
Historical civil rights movements have fought against major problems of racism, such as slavery and segregation; however, racism has taken on many different forms in present day society. Although segregation and racial profiling no longer legally exist in America’s K-12 public school system, minority students now find themselves at risk of facing racial profiling inside the classroom. When being treated for misbehavior at school, oftentimes African American students face disproportionate odds of the severity of punishment mandated compared to students of white descent. According to Deborah N. Archer, professor of law at New York Law School, “African American students represented only 17% of public school…
Reasons of why I support this statement is the exclusionary rule is such an amazing tool to use . The Forth Amendment is really an asset against unnecessary search and seizure. Instead of police and officers putting aside your constitutional rights if they're assuming you're guilty, they will instead have to work within the law to bring about…
My opinion is that although the exclusionary rule may significantly slow down the police department’s investigation and arrest process, it is a necessary “evil” in order to protect the rights of the individuals who in fact should not have their homes searched. I do however, agree that without the restrictions of the exclusionary rule police departments would be able to do their job a lot faster and more effectively, without having to worry about first getting a search warrant or after getting “slam dunk” evidence, having to see a case thrown out because it was not obtained through due process. My personal concern for allowing the police such a high level of discretion though, is that in the heat of the investigation and desire to catch or lock away a suspect, police may search the homes of people related, associated, or even suspected of having connections to the suspect in order to get information that could result in a guilty verdict, which would potentially violate the privacy of people who potentially are not connected to the crime or suspect being investigated.…
“It is unconscionable, contrary to public policy, and to the established law of the land to punish a man for the commission of an offense of the like of which he had never been guilty, either in thought or in deed, and evidently never would have been guilty of if the officers of the law had not inspired, incited, persuaded, and lured him to attempt to commit it.” Sorrells v. United States, 287 U.S. 435, 444-45 (1932) (Roberts, J., concurring). This is what prompted recognition of the entrapment defense, which is intended to ensure that officers of the law stick to their sole duty of preventing would be criminals and catching those who have already committed a crime. Id. at 444. “[A] valid entrapment defense has two related elements: government inducement of the crime, and a lack of predisposition on the part of the defendant to engage in criminal conduct.” Mathews v. United States, 485 U.S. 58, 63 (1988) (White, J., dissenting). The second element of this defense,…