Weeks v. United States Before, all evidences were admissible in a court of law but because of Weeks v. United States, illegally obtained evidences are now excluded and not admissible. This law is applicable in deferral prosecutions. In Weeks v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that when the authorities illegally seized item from Weeks’ residence, they violated his constitutional rights. The Fourth Amendment was also violated by the authorities in doing so. In Weeks v. United States, the issue focused on two questions, did the federal officer violated Week’s constitutional right by entering his house without warrant and is it possible for the federal government to use whatever they obtained from the warrantless search to nail Weeks …show more content…
Ohio case, the question was whether evidences obtained illegally through warrantless search can be used or not. The case focused on Mapp and how the Cleveland police illegally enter her home, look for evidences that does not exist and found something else which they decided that they can use against Mapp. The case was heard by Justice Clark where Mapp was convicted guilty of possessing obscene literature and images which at the time was illegal in the state of Ohio. According to the Supreme Court of Ohio, the evidences gathered used to convict map was obtained illegally during a warrantless seize operation at Mapp’s house. On the 23rd of May 1957, Mapp and her daughter were home when three Cleveland police came to their house. After knocking on their door, the police demanded to enter their house. According to the police, they have an information about a bombing suspect that was hiding in their home. The police also said that there was an illegal gambling equipment inside their home. Before Mapp allowed them entry despite them forcing her, she called her lawyer and was advised to demand for a search warrant before allowing them to come in. The police cannot show any warrant hence she refused entry. The police officers cannot do anything with her refusing to grant them
In the Lexington, Kentucky a drug operation occurred at an apartment complex. Police officers of Lexington, Kentucky followed a suspected drug dealer into an apartment complex. The officers smelled marijuana outside the door of one of the apartments, as they knocked loudly the officers announced their presence. There were noises coming from the inside of the apartment; the officers believed that the noises were as the sound of destroying evidence. The officers stated that they were about to enter the apartment and kicked the apartment door in in order to save the save any evidence from being destroyed. Once the officer enters the apartment; there the respondent and others were found. The officers took the respondent and the other individuals that were in the apartment into custody. The King and the
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.
On May 23rd 1957, three police officers representing Cleveland Ohio came to the door of Miss Mapp’s residence with the suspicion of a bombing suspect hiding out in her home. Miss Mapp and her daughter lived in a two family two story home. Upon their arrival at the house the police knocked on the door and demanded entrance from Miss Mapp. However Miss Mapp didn’t open the door and instead asked them to provide a search warrant after she called her attorney. The officers advised their headquarters of the situation and established surveillance of the home over the next few hours. The officers once again sought entrance three hours later when they forced open one of the doors to the home and went inside. It was around this time that miss mapp’s attorney arrived and witnessed the police officers enter the home. In their continued defiance of the law they did not allow Miss Mapp to see her attorney. At one point when the officers entered the hall Miss Mapp stopped them and demanded to see their search warrant. One officer held up a slip of paper claiming it to be a search warrant and Miss Mapp immediately grabbed it and stuck it in her bra. The officers wrestled Mapp to the ground and made her relinquish the paper through a struggle. The police then handcuffed her because she was being “belligerent”. The officers then escorted her upstairs and began searching through her drawers and belongings, even though they were looking for a bombing suspect. The police also looked at her photo albums and some of her personal papers. The search spread throughout the house. It’s possible that during this time they found who they believed was the bomber Virgil Ogletree inside the home. He said that he was there delivering laundry as he owned a dry cle...
Ohio. However, it was an obvious decision since evidence obtained through a search that was in violation of a person’s Fourth Amendment rights was already inadmissible in federal criminal proceedings, so it only makes sense to make federal and state criminal proceedings equal when it comes to protecting our Fourteenth Amendment Right to a due process proceeding. Mapp v. Ohio is so significant because it was one of the first of several landmark cases that demanded a re-evaluation of the role of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments as it applied to state court
Upon her conviction, Mapp appealed the case to the Court of Appeals, Eighth Judicial Circuit, but the cour...
There are records of many cases that has created controversies over reasonable or unreasonable searches and seizures. As stated in the fourth amendment,
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.
From a trial strategy point of view, you always start with the piece(s) of evidence you believe are most damaging to the client's case and work backwards looking for an exploitable flaw in the search and seizure procedure that would make that or those item(s) inadmissible. The further back in the series of events you can argue a fatal flaw, the more likely that the evidence and any additional materials which flowed from that particular item of evidence will be excluded. This is the practical analysis of all the times we see or hear of law enforcement arguing that there was some technical item which drew their attention and suspicion and justifies their hunch that criminal activity is afoot.
Tse was R v. Duarte. R v. Duarte had gone to the Supreme Court of Canada to fight section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This case presented similar features to R v. Tse. Mario Duarte was under investigation for a drug related situation. Police officers had set up a warrantless camera in the hotel room where the undercover cop would meet Mario Duarte, and was later convicted. Officers used the video as evidence but it was found that it violated section 8 of the Charter. Later the case had been appealed and Justice Peter Cory, found that what the Police officers had done was justified and did not violate the reasonable privacy. Justice Peter Cory relied upon United States v. White and Lopez v. United States to justify his reasoning. Another case that relates is Hunter et al. v. Southam Inc. This case is a landmark case to the Supreme Court of Canada because it is the first privacy rights case that is based on s. 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The investigation began by the government by giving authority to Combines Investigation Act to examine files in Southam Newspaper. The judge in Alberta found that the Act was conflicting with the Charter and therefore the evidence gathered was inadmissible. The last case that relates is R v. Godoy. This case relates to R v. TSE because police officers abused their powers by entering into an apartment because of a received 911 call that had been dropped before the caller
Police conducted a routine traffic stop which led to the arrest of Willie Davis for giving a false name to the police. Davis was handcuffed and placed in the back of a patrol car. The police searched the passenger side of the vehicle and found a revolver in the pocket Davis’ jacket. Davis was convicted of “Felon in Possession of a Firearm” which he appealed to the appellate court on the grounds that the search violated his Fourth Amendment rights.
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.
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.
...’ testimony at trial. This rule has played a big role in the American system like in the case of Mapp V. Ohio. Ohio police officers had gone to a home of a women to ask her question about a recent bombing and requested to search her house. When she denied them access, they arrested her and searched her house which led them to find allegedly obscene books, pictures, and photographs.