Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
right to privacy eassay
right to privacy eassay
4th amendment analysis
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: right to privacy eassay
The exclusionary rule is a judge-made case law that is publicized by the Supreme Court to avert police or government unlawfulness. It also forbids proof acquired violating a person’s constitutional rights from being allowed in court. The exclusionary rule is the most used method to hold forth constitutional violations by the government in criminal cases because of its closeness and the effect on search and seizures that are found unconstitutional due to police performance. The exclusionary rule may also aid in preservation in judicial morals by stopping judicial consensus in refusing the Fourth Amendment rights of a person. It also secures a person’s right to privacy (Harr, Hess, Orthmann, & Kingsbury, 2015). Below will discuss three high profile cases that involved the exclusionary rule. The first case that will be discussed is Mapp v. Ohio (1961). Dollree Mapp resided on the second floor of an apartment complex in Cleveland. A tip came into police that someone who was wanted for questioning for a bombing was hiding out at that location. Without a search warrant, police officers went to the house and
Ohio (1968). A Cleveland police detection saw John Terry and two other men monitoring a store downtown to rob. After watching their odd behavior for about 10 minutes, he apprehended them and frisked them. Terry failed to conceal his weapon and was convicted at trial. A sequence of failed appeals took him to the Supreme Court. The court supported the arrest and the frisk for weapons 8 to 1. The Supreme Court recognized a lower level of a rationale for the steps other than probable cause. The court determined the arrest and frisk to be plausible. The arrest and frisking must be explained by credible suspicion and is not a law that anyone who is lawfully stopped can be automatically frisked. Forty years later a temporary arrest is still called a “Terry Stop,” and a frisk for weapons is known as “Terry Search” (Rutledge,
Ohio began on May 23, 1957, in Cleveland, Ohio after three law enforcement officers arrived at Mapp’s home. These law enforcement officers believed that Mapp’s was hiding a suspected bomber in her home, and large amounts of policy paraphernalia. The law enforcement officers demanded that she let them into her home in order to pursue the bombing suspect. Mapp’s refused their entry because they did not have a valid search warrant. Later that day, law enforcement officers returned to Mapp’s home, but with the ill intent of taking matters into their own hands. They presented Mapp’s with a fabricated search warrant, which they refused to let her keep for her attorney. They continued to bombard their way into Mapp’s home in pursuit of the bombing suspect. The law enforcement officers did not find the bombing suspect, but did find a trunk full of obscene photos in Mapp’s basement (Mapp v. Ohio (1961)). Mapp’s was arrested, charged, and convicted by the Cuyahoga County Ohio Court of possessing lewd, lascivious, or obscene books, pictures, and photographs even though the search and seizure were unlawful. Mapp’s initially appealed her conviction based on violations of her First Amendment rights of freedom of expression because it was her right to have those obscene photos in her possession. Her appeal was later focused on the search and seizure violations of her Fourth Amendment right. Her appeal made it to the Supreme Court of the United States (Mapp v.
The controversy in this case was did the search and seizure of Terry and the men he was with violate the Fourth Amendment? This case tried to determine the role of the Fourth Amendment when police are investigating suspicious circumstances on the street, and when there is probable cause to search someone that is displaying questionable behavior (Justia, n.d.).
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...
The Stop and Frisk program, set by Terry vs. Ohio, is presently executed by the New York Police Department and it grant police officers the ability to stop a person, ask them question and frisk if necessary. The ruling has been a NYPD instrument for a long time. However, recently it has produced a lot of controversy regarding the exasperating rate in which minorities, who regularly fell under assault and irritated by the police. The Stop, Question and Frisk ruling should be implemented correctly by following Terry’s vs. Ohio guidelines which include: reasonable suspicion that a crime is about to be committed, identify himself as a police officer, and make reasonable inquires.
I believe this United States Supreme Court case is particularly important because it ultimately defends a person?s Constitutional right to privacy. As stated before, until this decision was made, the search and seizure laws were given little consideration. Although there is always an exception to the rule, for the most part, evidence that is obtained in a way that violates a person?s Constitutional right is inadmissible in Court. This decision has most definitely refined the laws of the admissibility of evidence and the procedures followed by those in law enforcement.
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.
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.
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 main purpose and rationale behind the Exclusionary Rule is to deter the criminal justice system from taking items and facts through illegal means. The notion was to try to expurgated and terminate law enforcement dishonesty. This meant that there would finally be law enforcement that would do their best to protect everyone’s individual rights because an officer now had to have probable cause before arresting anyone or seizing their property. After the Exclusionary Rule was put in place, any time after the criminal justice system made illegal searches and seizures, any evidence that was found was thrown out in court.
In the 1914 landmark case of Weeks v. United States, the Supreme Court created the exclusionary rule and was effectually created to protect people against unreasonable searches and seizures of the federal agents. The Court held that belongings or any evidence apprehended without a warrant or the defendant’s consent will be omitted in a criminal prosecuti...
The New York City Police Department enacted a stop and frisk program was enacted to ensure the safety of pedestrians and the safety of the entire city. Stop and frisk is a practice which police officers stop and question hundreds of thousands of pedestrians annually, and frisk them for weapons and other contraband. Those who are found to be carrying any weapons or illegal substances are placed under arrest, taken to the station for booking, and if needed given a summons to appear in front of a judge at a later date. The NYPD’s rules for stop and frisk are based on the United States Supreme Courts decision in Terry v. Ohio. The ruling in Terry v. Ohio held that search and seizure, under the Fourth Amendment, is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and frisks him or her without probable cause to arrest. If the police officer has a “reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime” and has a reasonable belief that the person "may be armed and presently dangerous”, an arrest is justified (Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, at 30).
...’ 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.
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
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.