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.).…
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…
Chapter Four – The Exclusionary Rule Vicente Farias Jose Martinez The Exclusionary Rule The Exclusionary Rule – Evidence obtained in violation of Fourth Amendment cannot be used at trial – The primary purpose of the exclusionary rule is to deter police misconduct – What other purpose does the exclusionary rule have? The Exclusionary Rule …
FACTS: After a routine traffic stop, a police officer noticed a hypodermic syringe in the shirt pocket of the car’s driver, which the driver soon admitted was for using drugs. The officer searched the passenger compartment for contraband and came upon a purse, which the respondent, a passenger in the car, claimed was hers. There was drug paraphernalia inside, and the respondent was arrested on drug charges. The evidence was admitted at trial and respondent was convicted. The Wyoming Supreme Court then reversed, holding that an officer with probable cause to search a vehicle may search all containers that might conceal the object of the search, but if the officer knows or should know that the container belongs to a passenger who is not suspected of criminal activity, then the container is not allowed to be searched under the Fourth Amendment unless someone had the opportunity to conceal contraband. The State of Wyoming was then granted certiorari.…
The discovery and search are procedures affirmed by cases New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454, (1981), Arizona v. Gant, 566 U.S. 332, (2009) and Wyoming v. Houghton, 526 U.S. 295, (1999). In the case of New York v. Belton, the court ruled that officers can search a car and any compartments in the car after conducting an arrest. This allows the search of the vehicle in the case of Rounds, because he was in custody in the patrol car, and he was arrested. Arizona v. Gant held that the search of a vehicle, after its occupant is arrested, is permissible if it is reasonable to believe that there is evidence linked to the arrest. Since Officer Towns first arrested and placed Rounds in the patrol car and then moved to question the opaque bag, he was in his right, especially because there was reason to believe that the contents of the bag could be linked to evidence of Rounds’s past crime: possession of marijuana. The prosecution cites Wyoming v. Houghton as well. This case dictates that as long as there is probable cause to search a vehicle, all following searches, including those of its contents are legal. Since there was probable cause to search Rounds’s vehicle, the recovery and seizure of the opaque bag was constitutional.…
iii. For Mapp, the police, who possessed no warrant to search her property, had acted improperly. Any evidence found during the search should have been thrown out of court and her conviction overturned. For the state of Ohio, even if the search was made improperly, the State was not prevented from using the evidence seized because “the Fourteenth Amendment does not forbid the admission of evidence obtained by an unreasonable search and seizure.” Ohio argued that the 14th Amendment does not guarantee 4th Amendment protections in the State courts.…
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…
Among the arguments in support of the exclusionary rule4 by its proponents are the following:…
Rowley case does not qualify under the private search doctrine. Granted, when a wrongful search or seizure is conducted by a private party, it does not violate the fourth amendment. The private citizen’s tampered with the evidence upon removal. The evidence did not remain in its original location and its physical state of capacity. The question at hand is the evidence could have been tampered with or altered when removed. If the evidence would have remained in its original location it would qualify under the private search doctrine.…
To protect the American peoples 4th Amendment right “against unreasonable searches and seizures” from law enforcement using illegally seized evidence in a criminal trial against them, the exclusionary rule was created. The U.S. Supreme Court deemed any evidence illegally obtained inadmissible in a criminal trial, and any other evidence obtained during an illegal search and seizure inadmissible as well. This is known as the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine.…
Basically the Exclusionary rule as set forth by the US Supreme Court states that any evidence obtained by police through search and seizure, arrest, interrogations and stop and frisk situations or any other evidence despite its relevance can be excluded as evidence. The Weeks v. United States was basically the origin of the Exclusionary Rule in 1914. In Weeks v United States Mrs, Weeks was arrested for shoplifting and attempted to get a note to her husband about this. Law enforcement went to the residence and without a warrant searched the home and found illegal lottery tickets and removed everything in relation to the tickets charging him with a federal crime because there was evidence showing these were handled through the mail. Mr. Weeks attorney filed with the courts this was illegally obtained evidence and should be excluded.…
Supreme Court & Exclusionary rule In the case of Davis v. The United States, the supreme court revisited the exclusionary rule to examine the law enforcement's method of obtaining evidence. The exclusionary rule also covers the Fifth Amendment, which protects against self-incrimination. As stated in lesson 4, “The purpose of the exclusionary rule is to prevent illegal police conduct and to penalize overzealous police officers for illegal searches and seizures” (Rio Salado College, n.d., Role of the Prosecutor and Alternatives to Prosecution). The rule protects individuals from unlawful government conduct and protects them from self-incrimination. The Supreme Court revisited the good faith exception where evidence obtained by law enforcement officers in reasonable reliance on a search warrant that is invalid could later be admissible in court.…
The purpose of the exclusionary rule is to exclude evidence obtained in violation of a criminal defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights. It is also a right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures by the Fourth Amendment. Some exceptions of the exclusionary rule is barring the use at trial of evidence obtained pursuant to an unlawful search and seizure. Some other exceptions to the exclusionary rule are: (1) a second, unpoisoned/untainted source had a major rule in finding the evidence, (2) the evidence would have been discovered…
The reason the defense argued the initial search and subsequent seizure violated the Fourth Amendment of the men being accused is because the arresting officer did not have probable cause for arrest, and simultaneously did not posses a warrant to search the suspects. The court denied the motion to suppress the evidence, and inevitably found the men guilty. The defense appealed all the way to the Supreme Court, but the court held the original…
The exclusionary rule is a legal procedure in the United States, which falls under the constitution. It protects citizens of the country in making sure that law enforcement officers are operating lawfully and that they abide by all search and seizure laws. It goes so far to protect the citizens of The United States that if a law enforcement officer illegally obtains evidence it can and most likely will be thrown out of the court. The purpose of this paper is to analyze the exclusionary rule, exploring its fallacies…