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…
|the law enforcement officer can make an arrest there has to be a clear sign of probable cause if an officer neglects to find |…
Supreme Court Decision: The search was unreasonable under the 4th and 14th amendments. In arresting officer may search only the area “within the immediate control" of the person arrested, meaning the area from which he might gain possession of a weapon or destructible evidence. Any other search of the surrounding area requires a search warrant.…
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 …
Other conditions on the searches incident to arrest exception include the use of force, the search of other individuals with the arrested individual, searching the vehicle of an arrest person, contemporaneousness and inventory searches "if a government agent has probable cause to believe the vehicle contains contraband or evidence of a crime without a warrant" because "in the time it would take to get a warrant, the car, driver and contraband or evidence could be long gone" (Harr, Hess, 2006. p. 231). The 1981 case of Robbins v. California saw the justifications for searching without a warrant. Those specifications include that the mobility of vehicles produce exigent circumstances.…
The Court established the Exclusionary Rule, which excludes any illegally obtained evidence from any unreasonable search or seizure, improper self-incriminatory statements, situations where defendants’ Sixth Amendment right to counsel to be used in court…
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…
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.…
Explain the exclusionary rule and list the 6 major cases that define the rule. The exclusionary rule is a rule that prohibits the use of evidence or testimony obtained in violation of civil rights liberties and rights protected by the U.S. Constitution. The 6 major cases are Weeks vs. United States, Silverthorne Lumber co. vs. United States, Wolf vs. Colorado, Mapp vs. Ohio, Hudson vs. Michigan, Herring vs. United States.…
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.…
(Exclusionary Rule, n.d.) The first case that applied the exclusionary rule was the case of Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 393, in which the Supreme Court “held that the Fourth Amendment barred the use of evidence secured through a warrantless search.” (Exclusionary Rule, n.d.) The exclusionary rule requires an illegal action by a police officer or agent of the police, evidence secured as a result of the illegal action, and a “casual connection between the illegal action and the evidence secured.” (Evaluation, n.d.)…
The ideology of the Exclusionary Rule goes back as far as before Untied States gained its own independence. The Exclusionary Rule states that evidence obtained in a violation of the Constitution cannot be used in a criminal trial to prove guilt. Although this rule is not stated in the Constitution, it was established off of the rulings of the Supreme Court. The grey area of the Exclusionary Rule can be found here for that reason. Since the rule was set up based off the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court instead of being written in law, it leaves room for vagueness when trying to realize what classifies as an unconstitutional search.…
Supreme Court put into law the exclusionary rule. The exclusionary rule has been in existence since the early 1900’s. This rule prohibits the use of evidence in a criminal trial when evidence is collected illegally; it gives protection to citizens who have been searched illegally by law enforcement who obtain illegal evidence for a conviction (Shestokas, 2014). The exclusionary rule has an extension called, Fruit of the Poisonous Tree doctrine (1920). The fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine was established primarily to deter law enforcement from violating rights against unreasonable searches and seizures (American Law 2008).…