The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees an individual’s protection against unlawful searches and seizures by law enforcement by providing that a search warrant with specific detailing information, based on “good faith” and probable cause, must be provided prior to investigation. By doing so, an individual may be secure that “his home is his castle” and his “person, papers, and effects” (The Constitution of the United States, Amendment 4) is protected as well. History has revealed that as our nation develops and technology progresses, clarifications and changes must be made to ensure the continued safety and protection of society while justice is able to continually prevail. The exclusionary rule and its companion,
The most common exception is when an officer is acting in good faith. Other exceptions include when a person’s rights are not violated by the search; if it can be proven that the evidence would have been predictably discovered; if the evidence was discovered by an uncontrollable chain of events; to prove a defendant committed perjury when that defendant chose to stand witness; and as evidence before a grand jury (Exclusionary Rule - Origins And Development Of The Rule,
Extending the exclusionary rule, this doctrine makes any secondary information or evidence obtained illegally (via the exclusionary rule) inadmissible in court. Therefore, if the tree is contaminated then the fruit of that tree is contaminated as well (Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Law & Legal Definition, 2001-2014). Although the Silverthorn Lumber Co. v. United States (1920) case is the commonly recognized case that adopted the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine it wasn’t until 1939 in the Nardone v. United States case that the doctrine was first used. However, the Nardone case was a statutory right case and it the doctrine was not applied to a Fourth Amendment violation until 1963 (Wong Sun v. United States). (Fruit of the Poisonous Tree - Further Readings, 2014) Typically, the determination of whether evidence is admissible or whether it falls under the Poisonous Fruit of the Tree Doctrine, will occur before trial begins in a suppression hearing. During this hearing the trial court judge must decide whether an illegal search was committed and then decide if the evidence in question is a result of that search (Fruit of the Poisonous Tree - Further Readings,
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysShow More
The concurring opinion was given by Justice Blackmun. He agreed with the majority opinion that the exclusionary rule is valid as long as the officer and magistrate act in ?good faith?, but he wanted to stress that it is not a rule to take lightly, that it may change with how cases such as this are handled in the future. (United States v. Leon ,
In this position paper I have chosen Bloodsworth v. State ~ 76 Md.App. 23, 543 A.2d 382 case to discuss on whether or not the forensic evidence that was submitted for this case should have been admissible or not. To understand whether or not the evidence should be admissible or not we first have to know what the case is about.
The Fourth (IV) Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses paper, 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" (U.S Constitution, Fourth Amendment, Legal Information Institute). The fourth amendment is a delicate subject and there is a fine line between the fourth amendment and 'unreasonable search and seizure. '
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.
To summarize the Fourth Amendment, it protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures. A search conducted by the government exists when the area or person being searched would reasonably have an expectation of privacy. A seizure takes place when the government takes a person or property into custody based on belief a criminal law was violated. If a search or seizure is deemed unreasonable, than any evidence obtained during that search and seizure can be omitted from court under
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.
In conclusion you will find that the Exclusionary Rule is actually nowhere in the Constitution, it was merely a judicial structure to make sure the Fourth Amendment was imposed. Even though there are a few exceptions to the rule, they really don’t over step the rule very much. Even though many criminals are released because of evidence obtained illegally, how can we continue to try and discourage police wrongdoing and also keep dangerous criminals off the streets?
The 4th Amendment only applies when certain criteria are met. The first criterion is that the government must be involved in a search or seizure via government action. This action applies to conduct by government officials such as police, firemen, or an individual hired as a private actor of the government. After the first criterion has been met, the court must determine whether a search or seizure has occurred. A search is defined as the physical or technologic invasion of an area deemed by the majority of the court to have a reasonable expectation of privacy. These places could be homes or a closed telephone booth depending on the circumstances of the incident. A seizure occurs when the government takes one's personal belongings or the individual themselves.
The Constitution of the United States of America protects people’s rights because it limits the power of government against its people. Those rights guaranteed in the Constitution are better known as the Bill of Rights. Within these rights, the Fourth Amendment protects “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable search and seizures […]” (Knetzger & Muraski, 2008). According to the Fourth Amendment, a search warrant must be issued before a search and seizure takes place. However, consent for lawful search is one of the most common exceptions to the search warrant requirement.
...’ 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.
Holhan, 294 U.S. 103 (1935). In Napue, the court had held that the same result occurs when the State although not soliciting false evidence allows it to go uncorrected when it appears. In Brady, the Supreme Court had held that irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution, suppression of material exculpatory evidence required a new trial.
A-58). It also requires “a warrant that specifically describes the place to be searched, the person involved, and suspicious things to be seized” (Goldfield et al. A- 58). The Fourth Amendment protects the privacy of the people by preventing public officials from searching homes or personal belonging without reason. It also determines whether “someone 's privacy is diminished by a governmental search or seizure” (Heritage). This amendment protects citizens from having evidence which was seized illegally “used against the one whose privacy was invaded” (Heritage). This gives police incentive to abide by the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment protects a person’s privacy “only when a person has a legitimate expectation to privacy” (FindLaw). This means the police cannot search person’s home, briefcase, or purse. The Fourth Amendment also requires there to be certain requirements before a warrant can be issued. The Fourth Amendment requires a warrant “when the police search a home or an office, unless the search must happen immediately, and there is no opportunity to obtain a warrant” (Heritage). The Fourth Amendment protects the privacy of the people, but also the safety of the people. When there is probable cause, a government official can destroy property or subdue a suspect. The Fourth Amendment prevents government officials from harassing the public.
The Weeks decision was the birth of a new legal doctrine titled ‘The Exclusionary Rule.’ The Exclusionary rule is defined as is a legal principle in the United States, under constitutional law, which holds that evidence collected or analyzed in violation of the defendant's constitutional rights is sometimes admissible for a criminal prosecution in a court of law.
Before going into explaining the exceptions to the exclusionary rule, let’s get a better understanding on what the exclusionary rule is. The Exclusionary Rule is meant to deter any illegal police conduct and to not be punished for any errors that are made during the process of doing their work. It’s also stated that the exclusionary rule also bars the admission of any evidence obtained by the government which is in violation of the constitution (Legal Information Institute, n.d.). Such rule mostly involves cases of search and seizure, arrests, interrogations and stop-and-frisk violations (Lyman, pg. 88). With that being said, the rule is to make sure that everything is clear cut when it comes to any arrest and going to trial. One does
In today’s justice system, law enforcement contributes a significant role in the prosecution of criminals. Police officials use searches and seizures to inspect and collect evidence to convict an individual for suspect of crime. Though, previous to a search taking place, there must be a prerequisite of probably cause, that is, evidence of an illegal act. Further, as the commission report is founded, the evidence is referred to the county prosecutor. In The Criminal Justice System, there are two ways of a felony case is referred to a local prosecutor. The first one is a felony arrest, where the collection evidence is established probable cause. The second kind of a felony case is referred to a prosecutor has an investigation case. As a prosecutor, it is vital to use discretion while processing a case. The prosecutor must make sure that the law enforcement obeys the rules of evidence. The main cause of evidence is inadmissible in court the exclusionary rule. That is, when the police use manipulative tactics that violates the fourth, fifth, sixth amendment of the accused. Therefore, by ...