More handpicked essays just for you.
Importance of the 4th amendment
Legal considerations with the 4th amendment
Legal considerations with the 4th amendment
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The exclusionary rule of evidence, supported by the fourth amendment to the United States Constitution, is a proactive law that in its simplest form attempts to deter police misconduct and protect the rights of United States citizens in criminal trials. Simply put "Evidence that is found as a result of a Fourth Amendment violation is subject to exclusion from court."(Shein) This is achieved by calling for the dismissal in the court of any and all evidence that was illegally obtained by the state in an investigation, search, or seizure. This is carried out in trial proceedings and can result in real evidence against a criminal or criminals being dismissed. According to Justice Clark of the Supreme Court the exclusionary rule of evidence “gives …show more content…
The exclusionary rule prevents evidence that was obtained through illegal and unconstitutional means to be brought against a suspect in court. This keeps the integrity of the state intact because when evidence is presented everyone knows that it was collected in a legal and honorable way. The exclusionary rule also deters police from engaging in misconduct by taking the easy way out when obtaining warrants. It prevents those in charge of keeping and enforcing laws from breaking them at their own discretion. Without the exclusionary rule, lawsuits would pop up left and right concerning illegal searches by the police. This argument holds true because there are countless incidents of police corruption for example "In the last few years, the Atlanta and Oakland police departments have had major scandals over officers’ lying to obtain search warrants. In this same period, of course, the federal government engaged in an illegal domestic wiretapping program, the extent of which is still unknown.(Cohen)" This rule forces the court to take a second look at the actions of police and protects private citizens from unfair treatment as well as keeping the fourth amendment
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.
The dissenting opinion was given by Justice Brennan, joined by Justice Marshall. Their concerns were that the majority opinion may be the beginning of the exclusionary rule slipping away. Brennon had observed that the Court had slowly began to let more things slide against the Fourth Amendment, and that the ?good faith? exception directly contradicted the Fourth Amendment. He also held that it may seem that the Court may pick and choose what evidence it allows in interest of obtaining a conviction. (United States v. Leon , 1984)
The Court held that because of the “special facts” the “attempt to secure evidence of blood-alcohol content in this case was an appropriate incident to petitioner’s arrest.” Under current jurisprudence, we would construe the language about “special facts” as relating to the exigent circumstances exception to the Fourth Amendment – which resists categorical rules – and instead focuses on the need for the intrusion and the availability of a warrant. However, the language also justifies the search as “incident to petitioner’s arrest,” which would indicate that the test was upheld as a search incident-to-arrest. In situations where it is appropriate, that has been described as a “categorical” exception to the warrant requirement that does not require any case-by-case
At the time of trial, Mr. Wardlow tried to suppress the handgun as evidence due to the fact that he believed the gun had been seized under an unlawful stop and frisk that violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right of the people against unreasonable searches and seizures by requiring a showing of probable cause in order to obtain a warrant before conducting such searches. “In a trial motion to suppress the gun, Wardlow claimed that in order to stop an individual, short of actually arresting the person, police first had to point to ‘specific reasonable inferences’ why the stop was necessary.”(Oyez, 2000) Recognizing that an investigati...
This leads explanations leads to the conclusion that there are implications of being part of the criminal justice system. The exclusionary rule along with other justice terms such as the fruit of the poisoned tree force police and other law enforcement members to obtain evidence properly and in respect to the Due process. According to the textbook Criminal Justice in Action, any arrest or seizure is unreasonable unless is supported by probable cause (Gaines, 2011). More than probable cause, police officers should rely on facts and circumstances that will lead them to arrest the individual accordingly.
To summarize the Fourth Amendment, it protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures. A search conducted by the government exists when the area or person being searched would reasonably have an expectation of privacy. A seizure takes place when the government takes a person or property into custody based on belief a criminal law was violated. If a search or seizure is deemed unreasonable, than any evidence obtained during that search and seizure can be omitted from court under
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 4th amendment provides citizens protections from unreasonable searches and seizures from law enforcement. Search and seizure cases are governed by the 4th amendment and case law. The United States Supreme Court has crafted exceptions to the 4th amendment where law enforcement would ordinarily need to get a warrant to conduct a search. One of the exceptions to the warrant requirement falls under vehicle stops. Law enforcement can search a vehicle incident to an individual’s arrest if the individual unsecured by the police and is in reaching distance of the passenger compartment. Disjunctive to the first exception a warrantless search can be conducted if there is reasonable belief
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.
The 4th amendment protects US citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. If it is violated by the government, all evidence found by the unlawful search and seizure must be excluded as per the exclusionary rule which serves as a remedy for 4th amendment violations. Before a remedy can be given for violation of the 4th amendment, a court must determine whether the 4th amendment is applicable to a certain case.
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
This doctrine allows a court to exclude any evidence that was obtained legally/illegally, in addition to any evidence that is found thereafter (any additional evidence derived from the initial illegal search/seizure). An example of such would be as follows: A law enforcement officer unlawfully enters a home (without search warrant) on the basis of mere suspicion that the resident is involved in illegal activities. Upon entering the residence, the officer discovers illegal narcotics in addition to a list of dealers - Any other evidence or persons seized (legally or illegally) as result of evidence/contraband found within the home, falls under the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine and may be inadmissible in court. In summary, I feel that the exclusionary rule and the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine should remain in place although (in some instances) it may allow a criminal to walk free.
...’ 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.
Police decisions can affect life, liberty, and property, and as guardians of the interests of the public, police must maintain high standards of integrity. Police discretion concerning how to act in a given situation can often lead to ethical misconduct (Banks 29).
In the 1980’s legal tension involving police searches was a direct result of the war on drugs campaign. Officers were encouraged to stop and seize or search suspicious vehicles to put a halt on drug trafficking (Harns, 1998). But placing this aggressive approach into effect had many negative outcomes. One problem was that it put police on a thin line with the constitutional laws. To no surprise, pretty much no data estimating how often police searches fall outside constitutional laws exist. Only cases that catch the courts attention are logged into the record books. A case study held in “Middleberg” on suspect searches reports that 70 of the 86 searches didn’t result in arrest; citations weren’t presented nor were any charges filed. Just about all of the unconstitutional searches, 31 out of 34, weren’t reported to the courts, nor were they intended to be reported.