When Davis was arrested, the law in the Eleventh Circuit and most jurisdictions was that when an officer has made a lawful arrest of the occupant of a car, he may conduct a search incident to arrest of the passenger compartment of the car, regardless of whether the occupant is within arm’s reach of the vehicle.
In Arizona v. Gant, decided later, the Supreme Court adopted a new, two-part rule under which an automobile search incident to arrest is constitutional (1) if the arrestee is within reaching distance of the vehicle during the search; or (2) if the police have reason to believe the vehicle contains evidence relevant to the crime of arrest. The exclusionary rule is a judicially created remedy, not compelled by the Fourth Amendment,
…show more content…
In order for application of the exclusionary rule to be appropriate, the deterrent value must outweigh the heavy costs of excluding relevant evidence. Police conduct that is intentional, reckless, or grossly negligent with regard to the Fourth Amendment will generally trigger application of the exclusionary rule; conversely, isolated negligence on the part of police is generally insufficient to justify the heavy costs of suppression under the exclusionary rule.
In this case, Davis conceded that the search in question was in good faith reliance on binding precedent at the time of the search. The majority concluded that this was fatal to his claim. Refusing the opportunity to limit the good-faith exception in this case, the majority explained that Davis conflated retroactive application with available remedies. While retroactive application of the Fourth Amendment standard is appropriate, the determination to apply the exclusionary rule involves a separate inquiry. Not all Fourth Amendment violations will trigger the exclusionary rule, indeed, it is only appropriate in those cases where application will further the purpose of the rule. Here, refusal to apply the exclusionary rule does not destroy the retroactive effect of Gant. Finally, the Court dismissed concerns that the rule announced would inhibit future challenges to Fourth Amendment
The issue that this case raises, is whether or not the officers had the right to search the car of a person who they just arrested, while the person is handcuffed and placed in the back of a squad car?
The court for this case found that the search and seizure of the stereo violated the fourth and fourteenth Amendments. The Decision was 6 votes for Hicks and 3 votes against.
The dissenting opinion was given by Justice Brennan, joined by Justice Marshall. Their concerns were that the majority opinion may be the beginning of the exclusionary rule slipping away. Brennon had observed that the Court had slowly began to let more things slide against the Fourth Amendment, and that the ?good faith? exception directly contradicted the Fourth Amendment. He also held that it may seem that the Court may pick and choose what evidence it allows in interest of obtaining a conviction. (United States v. Leon , 1984)
The U.S Constitution came up with exclusive amendments in order to promote rights for its citizens. One of them is the Fourth amendment. The Fourth Amendment highlights the right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searches, and persons or things to be seized (Worral, 2012). In other words such amendment gave significance to two legal concepts the prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures and the obligation to provide probable cause to issue a warrant. This leads to the introduction of the landmark Supreme Court case Mapp v. Ohio and the connection to a fact pattern (similar case). Both cases will be analyzed showing the importance of facts and arguments regarding the exclusionary rule and the poisonous doctrine.
The Supreme Court had to decide on the question of, does random drug testing of high school athletes violate the reasonable search and seizure clause of the Fourth Amendment? According to the Fourth Amendment, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Mapp v. Ohio Supreme Court Case in 1961 is historically significant as it was a turning point that changed our legal system by extending the exclusionary rule that existed at the federal level to include state courts. The exclusionary rule prevents the use of evidence obtained through an illegal search and seizure, without a warrant, to be used against the defendant in court. Before this case, each state decided whether to adopt the exclusionary rule. At the time of this case, twenty-four states were not using the exclusionary rule. The decision in this case meant that all states needed to comply with the exclusionary rule of the Fourth Amendment through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Supreme Court has held that vehicle searches are permitted if the arrestee is unsecured and is reaching distance from the passenger compartment or if the vehicle would have evidenced related to the arrest. Riley v. California, 134 S.Ct. 999 (2014). Searches based on information received from a seized cell phone must be permitted by warrant. Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332, 129 S.Ct. 1710 (2009).
In Cooper’s case, the court held that the exclusionary rules are an “essential part” of the Fourth Amendment, and that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, which states that “No state shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”, meaning that the federal exclusionary rule applies to the states. The exclusionary that is applied in the Federal courts should also be applied in State court
The Fourth Amendment of the U.S Constitution provides protection to the people against unreasonable searches and seizures. The exclusionary rule was a judicial precedence that made evidence obtained in violation of the US Constitution inadmissible in federal, state and local courts. Its primary focus being to discourage illegal or inappropriate law enforcement investigation practices. This ruling applies not only to evidence obtained directly from an illegal search or seizure, but also branches out to cover evidence indirectly obtained known as fruit of the poisonous tree. The fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine also referred to as the derivative evidence rule, prohibits submission of evidence that has been legally acquired through the
The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution states that people have the right “to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,” but the issue at hand here is whether this also applies to the searches of open fields and of objects in plain view and whether the fourth amendment provides protection over these as well. In order to reaffirm the courts’ decision on this matter I will be relating their decisions in the cases of Oliver v. United States (1984), and California v. Greenwood (1988) which deal directly with the question of whether a person can have reasonable expectations of privacy as provided for in the fourth amendment with regards to objects in an open field or in plain view.
...e Court would also fine Mr. Dickerson guilty of contraband. However, after reading the ruling, I understand how easily and differently the Fourth Amendment may be understood and withheld. Another good point was proven in the “Mapp vs. Ohio” case where law enforcement did indeed violate the Fourth Amendment. Interpretation of this amendment was apparent back in the 1760’s where they had cases based on the freedom of citizens. The Fourth Amendment is a very creative amendment that gives the people the right of freedom and to protect their own properties. As a future law enforcement officer, I chose this amendment to gather information on the proper procedures to obtain a search warrant and understand how improperly obtaining a search warrant may change an outcome of a case. Furthermore, the Fourth Amendment may be perceived differently in a court of law.
The issue is whether there was a 4th Amendment and 6th Amendment violation in the search of the car and the subsequent confession.
Arizona V. Hicks discusses the legal requirements law enforcement needs to meet to justify the search and seizure of a person’s property under the plain view doctrine. The United States Supreme Court delivered their opinion of this case in 1987, the decision is found in the United States reports, beginning on page 321, of volume 480. This basis of this case involves Hicks being indicted for robbery, after police found stolen property in Hick’s home during a non-related search of the apartment. Hicks had accidentally discharged a firearm into the apartment below him, injuring the resident of that apartment. Police responded and searched Hicks apartment to determine the identity of the shooter, recover the weapon, and to locate other victims.
The amendment involved in this case was the Fourth Amendment due to the protection of unreasonable search
Terry v. Ohio was in 1968 it had a decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that the fourth amendment prohibition on the unreasonable search and seizures is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the streets and frisks him or her without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer had a reasonable suspicion of that person had commit a crime in which he can be belief that the person may have a weapons that can be dangerous to a police officer.