The Exclusionary Rule is a rule that prohibits law enforcement from using illegally obtained evidence against a defendant in criminal proceedings (Carlson, 2009). This rule was created from the ruling of Mapp v. Ohio, which was a case between a woman named Dollaree Mapp and the State of Ohio (“Mapp V Ohio,” n.d.). Because of the Exclusionary Rule, law enforcement must make sure to correctly follow certain procedures in order to be able to present all the evidence obtained from a crime scene in a court of law.
Basis for the Exclusionary Rule
The concept of the exclusionary rule was first established in the United States Supreme Court ruling of Mapp v. Ohio. In this case, the Cleveland Police Department entered the residence of Dollaree Mapp to search for a wanted fugitive that was believed to be hiding in Mapp's home (“Mapp V Ohio,” n.d.). While searching for the fugitive, Police found books containing lewd material. After discovering the books, police arrested Mapp but never charged her with anything (“Mapp V Ohio,” n.d.). Mapp claimed that the seizure of evidence in her case violated the fourth amendment protection from unlawful search and seizure (“Mapp V Ohio,” n.d.).
How the Exclusionary Rule Affects the Process of Investigation
…show more content…
By law, search warrants must clearly state the intent and scope of the search within a certain area (“Search Warrants: What They Are and When They're Necessary”, n.d.). Aside from having a reason for the search, police cannot seize evidence and charge someone for a crime that is not within the scope of that search warrant. For example, an S.W.A.T team cannot just simply raid someone’s home looking for marijuana and come out with evidence that puts a person in custody for a stolen 2015 Chevrolet
A warranted search is per say reasonable. Officers may then employ various reasonable means of obtaining the information, e.g. search the content of U.S. mail, one’s house or office, or deploy an undercover agent as in Lewis v. United States (1966). They may, without need for physical intrusion as under the archaic trespass doctrine, utilize modern surveillance methods, such as electronic eavesdropping as in Lopez v. United States (1963) or heat signatures. (Solove and Schwartz 83) Under the third party doctrine, officers may obtain information that you voluntarily provide to your bank, accountant, ISP or e-mail provider as per United States v. Forrester (2008). (Ibid 197; 199) Conversely, “a warrantless search is generally considered to be per se unreasonable.” (Ibid 99) As noted in Katz v. United States (1967), “‘the mandate of the [Fourth] Amendment requires adherence to judicial processes,’ and that searches conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval by judge or magistrate, are per se unreasonable…” (Ibid 99) Fail to meet any of the four elements and the warrant does not meet constitutional muster (see Berger v. New York (1967) wherein officers failed to stop surveillance at
On September 4, 1958, Dollree Mapp’s was convicted in the Cuyahoga County Ohio Court of Common Pleas (Mapp v. Ohio - 367 U.S. 643 (1961)). On March 29, 1961, Dollree Mapp v. Ohio was brought before the Supreme Court of the United States after an incident with local Ohio law enforcement and a search of Dollree Mapp 's home (Mapp v. Ohio 367 U.S. 643 (1961)). In the Bill of Rights, the Fourth Amendment protects and prohibits all persons from unreasonable searches and seizures. However, can evidence obtained through a search that was in violation of a person’s Fourth Amendment rights still be admitted in a state criminal proceeding? This is the issue that will be thoroughly examined in the landmark case of Dollree Mapp v. the State of Ohio (henceforth
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.
On the whole, Mapp vs. Ohio set the standard for obtaining evidence. Evidence that was attained by violating the 4th amendment was inadmissible in the court of law. Therefore putting limits on how police operate in their searches. An argument 50 years in the making was finally settled in Mapp’s case. The exclusionary rule was applied to all state levels.
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).
That being said, the government can still conduct searches and seizures if the government follows certain steps correctly. Searches and seizures require a specific warrant written by a detached and neutral magistrate based on probable cause. This warrant requirement can be waived, depending on the circumstances of the incident. Some examples of this include the automobile exception, emergencies, searches incident prior to arrest, and exigent circumstances. Police may also make warrantless arrests provided they have probable cause prior to the arrest.
One controversial aspect of the Fourth Amendment is of how courts should seize evidence obtained illegally. The rights guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment in the Bill of Rights states that “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.” However, it does not explain clearly what an unreasonable search or seizure is and in what cases a police officer should take caution when searching or seizing a suspect. As cases arose in which defendants brought these questions into court, the Supreme Court decided it would need to establish rules which the federal government would implement so that the government doesn’t abuse/overlook the people’s rights in due process. The controversial issue from the Fourth Amendment, which some may regard as implied, but others may regard having a broader meaning, comes from the Exclusionary rule. The Exclusionary Rule was created by the Supreme Court and says that “evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable search and seizure could not be used against a person in federal court” (Great American Court Cases 360). The Exclusionary rule is considered just because it protects the people’s constitutional rights from being violated and provides a check on the power of law enforcement and state courts.
Thomson Reuters. (2013). The Fourth Amendment and the “Exclusionary Rule”. Retrieved December 1, 2013, from http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-rights/the-fourth-amendment-and-the-exclusionary-rule.html
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. A warrant, a legal paper authorizing a search, cannot be issued unless there is a reasonable cause. Courts have rules that a warrant is not required in every case. In emergencies such as hot pursuit, public safety, danger of loss of evidence, and permission of the suspect, police officers do not need a warrant to search a person’s property (Background Essay). In the case of DLK, federal agents believed DLK was growing marijuana in his home. Artificial heat intensive lights are used to grow the marijuana indoors (Doc B). Agents scanned DLK’s home with a thermal imager. Based on the scan and other information, a judge issued
Three police officers were looking for a bombing suspect at Miss Mapp’s residence they asked her if they could search her house she refused to allow them. Miss Mapp said that they would need a search to enter her house so they left to go retrieve one. The three police officers returned three hours later with a paper that they said was a search warrant and forced their way into her house. During the search they found obscene materials that they could use to arrest her for having in her home. The items were found in the basement during an illegal search and seizure conducted in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and therefore should not admissible in court.
A search and seizure is the phrase that describes law enforcement's gathering of evidence of a crime. Under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, any search of a person or his premises this also includes vehicles. Any seizure of tangible evidence, must be reasonable. Normally, law enforcement must obtain a search warrant from a judge, specifying where and whom they may search, and what they may seize, though in emergency circumstances, they may dispense with the warrant requirement.
The Exclusionary Rule made its first appearance in the judicial system when it was put there by the Supreme Court thanks to Weeks v. United States. At first the Exclusionary Rule was only used in federal cases, only after fifty years of being adopted by the Supreme Court was it used in state cases as well. Before Weeks v. United States, any and all evidence that was acquired illegally or that violated the peoples constitutional rights was still used, if it was practical to the circumstance. The definition of the Exclusionary Rule is, “a rule that forbids the introduction of illegally obtained evidence in a criminal trial (The Free Dictionary, 2014).” The Fourth Amendment reads “…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 (Law, 2008).”
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.