Wolf V. Colorado Case Study

250 Words1 Page
bulb-icon

Recommended: analysis on mapp v. ohio

On the other hand, Justice Harlan believed the police should’ve been able to use the evidence they had found in the search, and he referenced Wolf v. Colorado, which specifically ruled that the Fourth Amendment doesn't prohibit the use of illegally seized evidence. Furthermore, states and local police weren’t directed by the exclusionary rule. In Wolf v. Colorado, Justices argued not all illegal evidence should be thrown out because doing so doesn’t violate the standards assured by the Due Process Clause. Mapp v. Ohio and Wolf v. Colorado had a connection that illegal evidence should be usable by the Supreme Court. Moreover, the State of Ohio declared if the search was made without any consent the State was not prevented from using evidence

Show More
Related

  • Geringer V. Wildhorn Ranch Case Brief

    605 Words  | 2 Pages

    1. Case name: Geringer v. Wildhorn Ranch, Inc., 706 F. Supp. 1442 - Dist. Court, D. Colorado 1988

    Read More

  • Benning V. Vermont: Case Study

    1792 Words  | 4 Pages

    In 1989, plaintiff Joseph Benning was cited for a violation of § 1256 for operating a motorcycle without wearing approved headgear in Caledonia County, Vermont. The statue states that “No person may operate or ride upon a motorcycle upon a highway unless he wears upon his head protective headgear reflectorized in part and of a type approved by the commissioner.1 The headgear shall be equipped with either a neck or chin strap.1” The County State’s Attorney dismissed the citation because he deemed the statue vague and unable to establish the elements necessary to prosecute the crime.1 However, the plaintiffs filed suit against the state, seeking to have § 1256 declared unconstitutional.

    Read More

  • State V Marshall Case Study

    1625 Words  | 4 Pages

    Facts: Rex Marshall testified that the deceased came into his store intoxicated, and started whispering things to his wife. The defendant stated that he ordered the deceased out of the store immediately, however the deceased refused to leave and started acting in an aggressive manner; by slamming his hate down on the counter. He then reached for the hammer, the defendant states he had reason to believe the deceased was going to hit him with the hammer attempting to kill him. Once the deceased reached for the hammer the defendant shot him almost immediately.

    Read More

  • arizona v. grant

    599 Words  | 2 Pages

    The police responded to a tip that a home was being used to sell drugs. When they arrived at the home, Gant answered the door and stated that he expected the owner to return home later. The officers left and did a record check of Gant and found that his driver’s license had been suspended and there was a warrant for his arrest. The officers returned to the house later that evening and Gant wasn’t there. Gant returned shortly and was recognized by officers. He parked at the end of the driveway and exited his vehicle and was placed under arrest 10 feet from his car and was placed in the back of the squad car immediately. After Gant was secured, two officers searched his car and found a gun and a bag of cocaine.

    Read More

  • Arizona V. Hicks

    732 Words  | 2 Pages

    Also another fact one of the justices, Justice O’Connor disagreed with the outcome of the case. She said it was called a, “Cursory Inspection” she went on saying the officers could do the search based on reasonable suspicion that the object was evidence of a criminal activity.

    Read More

  • Justice Harlan's Reasonable Expectation Test In Katz Vs. United States

    1009 Words  | 3 Pages

    Justice Harlan’s reasonable expectations test in Katz vs. United States (1967) considers whether a person has an “actual (subjective) expectation of privacy” and if so, whether such expectation is one that “society is prepared to recognize as ‘reasonable.’” (Solove and Schwartz 99) If there is no expectation of privacy, there is no search and no seizure (reasonable, or not), and hence no Fourth Amendment issue. Likewise, we must first ascertain whether a search took place. A few questions from a police officer, a frisk, or the taking of blood samples do not constitute a search. (Solove and Schwartz 83; 86) Likewise, the plain view doctrine establishes that objects knowingly exhibited in a public area, in plain view for police to see, do not

    Read More

  • Dollree Mapp V. Ohio Case

    779 Words  | 2 Pages

    United States, the Court concluded that in order to protect the citizen’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, illegally seized evidence must be excluded in federal trials” (Gardner & Anderson, 2016, p. 215). The key phrase in this statement is “federal trials” because this indicates that the state courts did not have to adopt the exclusionary rule, and could still admit illegally seized evidence in their state-level court systems if they so pleased it. Unfortunately for Mapp’s, the state of Ohio did not adopt the exclusionary rule until later, which leads to me her arguments. Mapp’s argued that any evidence that is obtained illegally should be inadmissible in court. She further argued that the exclusionary rule or the Fourth Amendment rights should apply to all criminal prosecutions, including state

    Read More

  • Vernonia School District V. Acton

    1088 Words  | 3 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • The Case Of Mapp V. Ohio

    928 Words  | 2 Pages

    Ohio and Miranda v. Arizona have great impacts on the United States criminal justice system. The decision of Mapp v. Ohio ultimately aids in the strengthening of the Fourth Amendment with the extension of the exclusionary rule. Until this ruling, states did not have to obey this rule and could get away with warrantless searches. With this order, the privacy of United States citizens is safeguarded. Moreover, the Supreme Court created the “Miranda rights” as a result of Miranda v. Arizona. The Miranda rights establish that upon a person 's arrest, the police is mandated to inform that individual of his basic rights, which include “that he has a right to remain silent, that any statement he does make may be used as evidence against him, and that he has a right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed” (9). Essentially, people are given the right to not make any “self-incriminating statements”

    Read More

  • Exclusionary Rule: How, When, and Why Was it Established?

    966 Words  | 2 Pages

    The Fourth Amendment is the basis for several cherished rights in the United States, and the right to the freedom of unreasonable searches and seizures is among them. Therefore, it would seem illegitimate- even anti-American for any law enforcement agent to search and seize evidence unlawfully or for any court to charge the defendant with a guilty verdict established on illegally attained evidence. One can only imagine how many people would have been sitting in our jails and prisons were it not for the introduction of the exclusionary rule.

    Read More

  • Fourth Amendment

    1026 Words  | 3 Pages

    ...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.

    Read More

  • Mapp v. Ohio

    569 Words  | 2 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Arizona V. Hicks Summary

    695 Words  | 2 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • The Pros And Cons Of The Exclusionary Rule

    1016 Words  | 3 Pages

    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).”

    Read More

  • Terry Vs Ohio Essay

    1311 Words  | 3 Pages

    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.

    Read More

More about Wolf V. Colorado Case Study

Open Document