Illegally Seized Evidence Research Paper
December 15, 1791, was a major date for the field of criminal justice simply because this was the date that the Fourth Amendment was adopted by Congress in the U.S. The Fourth Amendment states that people are protected in their homes and persons against any and all unacceptable search and seizure. People are concerned with the issue of illegally seized evidence or any evidence that is confiscated without following due process of the Bill of Rights. The illegally seized evidence is generally gathered when a police officer conducts a search without the proper paperwork, such as a proper warrant or inadequate interrogations.
The exclusionary rule, which is the legal obligation of law enforcement, states that any evidence or statements must be
seized by due process declared by the Constitution or else it would be inadmissible in a court. Something that contradicts the exclusionary rule would be the good-faith exception. This modification allows police officers to illegally seize evidence in reasonable good faith. This was established after a court case in 1984, U.S. v. Leon, where the officers involved simply thought they were acting in accordance with the Fourth Amendment which has a requirement where no warrant should be issued in any case, unless under probable cause. However, probable cause is a whole other issue and has caused quite the controversy in society. Probable cause can be defined as facts or circumstances that would persuade a practical person of intelligence to think that someone else had committed a crime. Although it also gives police officers a reason to believe such an accusation. In U.S. v. Leon, a warrant was issued to Alberto Leon for drug trafficking which allowed the police to search his three residents which provided the police with a successful find of drugs and other evidence. At first, a federal court put an end to this case because the police did not have enough probable cause. Later, the good-faith exception was found to reinstate the conviction of Leon. These officers involved in Leon’s case used reasonable suspicion to place Leon under surveillance which led them to their arrest. Reasonable suspicion is pretty straightforward and is simply the amount of suspicion that would give justification to an officer for wanting to conduct further investigations on the suspect. Search and seizure is a topic that could be spoken about for years, however, this is just a short explanation of how one Amendment could impact a court case and how other changes could arise from such a case.
The exclusionary rule, which is the legal obligation of law enforcement, states that any evidence or statements must be
seized by due process declared by the Constitution or else it would be inadmissible in a court. Something that contradicts the exclusionary rule would be the good-faith exception. This modification allows police officers to illegally seize evidence in reasonable good faith. This was established after a court case in 1984, U.S. v. Leon, where the officers involved simply thought they were acting in accordance with the Fourth Amendment which has a requirement where no warrant should be issued in any case, unless under probable cause. However, probable cause is a whole other issue and has caused quite the controversy in society. Probable cause can be defined as facts or circumstances that would persuade a practical person of intelligence to think that someone else had committed a crime. Although it also gives police officers a reason to believe such an accusation. In U.S. v. Leon, a warrant was issued to Alberto Leon for drug trafficking which allowed the police to search his three residents which provided the police with a successful find of drugs and other evidence. At first, a federal court put an end to this case because the police did not have enough probable cause. Later, the good-faith exception was found to reinstate the conviction of Leon. These officers involved in Leon’s case used reasonable suspicion to place Leon under surveillance which led them to their arrest. Reasonable suspicion is pretty straightforward and is simply the amount of suspicion that would give justification to an officer for wanting to conduct further investigations on the suspect. Search and seizure is a topic that could be spoken about for years, however, this is just a short explanation of how one Amendment could impact a court case and how other changes could arise from such a case.