Due Process Of The Law: Constitutional And Due Process

Second, in the case of Wolf v Colorado, Wolf was convicted of a crime by the state due to the fact that deputies seized medical records from a doctor’s office without a search warrant. He appealed on the grounds that this was a violation of the Fourth Amendment which impels the court to exclude the record seized at trial. The exclusionary rule was differentiated as a permitted variation because this case was tried on in a state court as a state prosecution. In the case of a federal crime for a federal prosecution the search and seizure would have been excluded. Therefore, the Supreme Court declined to acknowledge the act of the deputies as an unreasonable search and seizure because the Fourteenth Amendment does not decline the use of evidence

The judicial exercise of judgment with the Amendments is a safeguard set into place by the framers of the Constitution. To practice restraint and impassiveness in order to achieve adequate impartiality demands and requires self- discipline and frankness on shared and unshared views. These are the characteristics of judicial behavior that society expect and entrust in a Court that has such judicial power. The characteristics of Due Process are both bold and vague. As cases come before the Supreme Court, Due Process becomes a gradual reasoning involving inclusions and exclusions in the judicial process. Decisions concerning its implication and its guardianship over the law that it requires yields the will of the law and the rules that define it, not self- willed judgment. In each case “due process of law” requires an evaluation based on a disinterested inquiry pursued in the spirit of science, on a balanced order of facts exactly and fairly stated, on the detached consideration of conflicting claims, on judgment not ad hoc and episodic but duly mindful of reconciling the needs of both of continuity and of change in a progressive