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.
Judges have fairly broad discretion. If evidence is ruled inadmissible, the court may, either on its own motion or on the defense's motion, determine that the remaining evidence the prosecution will present at trial is not sufficient. In short, the prosecution cannot prove an offense was committed, that the accused committed the offense and, therefore, cannot legally support a conviction. By the same token, on motion of the defense, the court can still determine that even if the evidence in question is admissible that it still does not reach the level of proving the elements of the crime charged, that the accused did commit the offense, and cannot legally support a conviction. So long as that determination is made before a jury is empanelled, or commencement of presentation of evidence in a bench trial the court may dismiss without prejudice. In that instance the prosecution can come back later with additional evidence and present charges again. However, the prosecution is still subject to the applicable statute of limitations.
...
... middle of paper ...
...d.). Requirements for a dui checkpoint. Retrieved from http://criminal-law.freeadvice.com/criminal-law/drunk_driving/dui-checkpoint-overview.htm
2. Criminal Law. (n.d.). What is the officer looking for leading up to and during a dui arrest? . Retrieved from http://criminal-law.freeadvice.com/criminal-law/drunk_driving/officer_detention.htm
3. Frederick, H. (2012, 05 22). Headline surfer. Retrieved from http://nsbnews.net/content/409217-holly-hill-cops-homeowner-grazed-pellet-after-pushing-away-sawed-shotgun-pointed-him-
4. Gardner, A. (2010). Introduction to Criminal Evidence. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
5. Lawyers.com. (2011). Lawyers.com. Retrieved from http://criminal.lawyers.com/traffic-violations/Unlawful-Vehicle-Searches-and-Seizures.html
6. The free dictionary. (2008). Retrieved from http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Plain View Doctrine
Other evidence located within the grave consisted of a generic watch, two cigarette butts, a button, a washer and a shell casing. All of these could be analysed for finger prints and DNA. The cigarette butts would also show a serial number indicating the brand (shown in Figure 3), which can be useful if it is found a victim or offender smokes a particular type of cigarette.
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
Jurors will thoroughly inspect and weigh over the evidence provided, and process any and all possible scenarios through the elements of crime. If the evidence does not support the prosecutor 's argument and the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, the jury must pronounce the defendant not guilty. If questionable or irrelevant evidence is included in the criminal proceeding, it is the duty of the prosecutor or defendant 's counsel to object and insist that the evidence be excluded by the presiding
The majority opinion, written by Justice Clark, states that all evidence obtained in an illegal search cannot be used as evidence in a state criminal trial.
The Exclusionary Rule is a law passed by the United States Supreme Court. It demands that “any evidence obtained by police using methods that violate a person’s constitutional rights be excluded from use in a criminal prosecution against that person” (Ferdico, Fradella, and Totten, 2009). Before this rule, under common law, evidence was acknowledged in court as long as it satisfied evidentiary criteria for admissibility such as relevance and trustworthiness. Any evidence meeting these principles was admitted because it was considered to be helping to achieve justice. Under common law, evidence that was attained by illegal searches and seizures was allowed (Tinsley & Kinsella, 2003). During this period, the protections of the Fourth Amendment were unfilled words to persons condemned until 1914 in the case of Weeks v. United States.
All evidence found within illegal standing and evidence that is illegally found by police without a search warrant, are inadmissible in court any illegal search done by officers
"Stop and Frisk." Gale Encyclopedia of American Law. Ed. Donna Batten. 3rd ed. Vol. 9. Detroit: Gale, 2010. 391-392. Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 5 Nov. 2013.
One of the major court decisions for the “Search Incident to Arrest” was Gant vs. Arizona. Rodney Gant was arrested for driving with a suspended driving license. When the police officers arrested him and had him hand cuffed in the back seat of the police car, they then did a search on his vehicle. The police then didn’t have a reason to think there were illegal things in his car just from driving with a suspended license. The search warrant to arrest states that a police officer may conduct a warrantless search if there are any suspensions found within the area. In Gant versus Arizona this was not the case. The police officer had no reason to search Rodney’s car just because he had a suspended drivers license. As the police officer was searching the car he found cocaine in a jacket pocket in the back seat. A previous case ruling such as New York versus Belton, they had made the bright-line rule. The bright-line says that a police can search the compartment on the passenger side of a vehicle or any containers that are within the reach or “grabbing area” of the arrestee. Later over the years there was another court casing, Thornton versus United States. During the courts ruling they had changed the Belton rule again. It now said that the police cannot pursue a warrantless search if the arrestee is secured and locked up in a police car and has no access to the inside of the vehicle. After hearing the revised rule, the court did not give up. In the final courts ruling, a police can still perform a warrantless search only if there is any reason to believe there is other crime related evidence in the vehicle. Since the time of Gants arrest the police had no suspicions to conduct a warrantless search because of a suspended driving license, Gant
The criminal justice system has changed a lot since the good old days of the Wild West when pretty much anything was legal. Criminals were dealt with in any fashion the law enforcement saw fit. The science of catching criminals has evolved since these days. We are better at catching criminals than ever and we owe this advancement to forensic science. The development of forensic science has given us the important techniques of fingerprinting and DNA analysis. We can use these techniques to catch criminals, prove people's innocence, and keep track of inmates after they have been paroled. There are many different ways of solving crimes using forensic evidence. One of these ways is using blood spatter analysis; this is where the distribution and pattern of bloodstains is studied to find the nature of the event that caused the blood spatter. Many things go into the determination of the cause including: the effects of various types of physical forces on blood, the interaction between blood and the surfaces on which it falls, the location of the person shedding the blood, the location and actions of the assailant, and the movement of them both during the incident. Another common type of forensic evidence is trace evidence. This is commonly recovered from any number of items at a crime scene. These items can include carpet fibers, clothing fibers, or hair found in or around the crime scene. Hairs recovered from crime scenes can be used as an important source of DNA. Examination of material recovered from a victim's or suspect's clothing can allow association to be made between the victim and other people, places, or things involved in the investigation. DNA analysis is the most important part of forensic science. DNA evidence can come in many forms at the crime scene. Some of these forms include hair; bodily fluids recovered at the crime scene or on the victim's body, skin under the victim's fingernails, blood, and many others. This DNA can be the basis of someone's guilt or innocence; it has decided many cases in the twentieth century. As the times continue to change and the criminals get smarter we will always need to find new ways to catch them. Forensic science is the most advanced method yet, but is only the beginning. As the field of science grows so will the abilities of the
Reasonable Suspicion is a standard used in criminal procedure, more relaxed than probable cause, that can justify less-intrusive searches. For example, a reasonable suspicion justifies a stop and frisk, but not a full search. A reasonable su...
In today’s time, modern Crime Scene Investigation has increased rapidly. From throughout the late 1900’s and in the early 2000’s (Taylor 1). For all of the evidence that they find, a solid foundation has formed over the thousands of years of Crime Scene
The Exclusionary rule requires that any evidence taken into custody be obtained by police using methods that violates an individual constitutional rights must be excluded from use in a criminal prosecution against that individual. This rule is judicially imposed and arose relatively recently in the development of the U.S. legal system. Under the common law, the seizure of evidence by illegal means did not affect its admission in court. Any evidence, however obtained, was admitted as long as it satisfied other evidentiary criteria for admissibility, such as relevance and trustworthiness. The exclusionary rule was developed in 1914 and applied to the case of Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383, and was limited to a prohibition on the use of evidence illegally obtain by federal law enforcement officers. Not until 1949, in the caw of Wolf v. Colorado, 38 U.S. 25, 27-28, did the U.S. Supreme Court take the first step toward applying the exclusionary rule to the states by ruling that the Fourth Amendment was applicable to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment which states: the security of one’s privacy against arbitrary intrusion by the police-which is at the core of the Fourth Amendment- is basic to a free society. It is therefore implicit in the “concept of ordered liberty” and as such enforceable against the States through the Due Process Clause.
Collecting evidence from a crime scene is a crucial aspect of solving crimes. Before evidence can be seized, there must first be a court order approving the search of the crime scene and the seizure of the evidence found at the scene. Standard protocol for officers is for them to always use latex gloves, avoid plastic bags, double wrap small objects, package each object separately, and to collect as much evidence as possible. It is better to have too much evidence than to not have enough. There are countless amounts of evidence that can be found at a crime scene.
There are several steps that need to be taken in order to process a crime scene. Some of the steps include: securing the scene, a detailed search, documenting the crime scene, collecting and preserving evidence, and finally releasing the scene. All of the following steps are crucial to avoid any possible contamination or otherwise compromise the scene before it can be released. Few, if any additional opportunities exist when processing a crime scene, so the first time is most pertinent.
Today, technology has affected our global surroundings in a number of ways. Technology has created a more advanced society and economy. We use technology in every aspect of life today. New innovations and technology helps create a safer atmosphere and reduces the rate of crime. Technology is the usage and knowledge of techniques or is systems of these things. Usage of technology in the criminal justice system is not new but more apparent today. Technology in criminal justice will continue to challenge us to think about how we turn information into knowledge. Due to new technology, criminal investigations are able to maintain and improve their processes. Forensic science, DNA, other and future technology has all had a tremendous impact on criminal investigation and its process.