Case Study: United States V. Havens

hopes that it would help prevent future clerical errors. Since one of the main goals of the exclusionary rule is to prevent future violations, and in this case clerical errors.

United States v. Havens (1980) addresses not whether or not evidence can be used in a criminal trial. Now the dilemma is not if it can be used but what it can be used for. In this case it cannot be used as evidence used to determine guilt. It can be used as impeachment evidence though. Meaning he loses credibility when testifying during trial.

Herring v. United States (2009), defines the difference between negligence and acting outside the scope of law is different than an officer doing wrong simply because of a systematic issue. The defendant in this case had illegal evidence obtained during a search incident to an arrest. The issue arose when it was discovered the warrant was not live. This systematical error was not the officer fault. In conclusion the court held that if the officers should be able to trust the system and in this case the validity of warrants.

With

However, as technological advancements are made, case law inquiring the advancements are subjected to weather there uses have violated the fourth amendment. Moreover, weather the evidence obtained through these new advances are fruits from the poisonous tree doctrine. In United States v. Knotts (1983) the concern was if the radio transmitter giving away the suspects location did not invade on their privacy. The decision was held on the grounds that someone traveling on public’s roads has a less expectation of privacy than in the person’s home. Similarly, in the case United States v. Karo (1984) was that placing a beeper in an ether container before it reaches the person in question to track its location is a violation of privacy. The reasoning behind this decision being that the ether container could be tracts by tracking its movements