Weeks v. United States Before, all evidences were admissible in a court of law but because of Weeks v. United States, illegally obtained evidences are now excluded and not admissible. This law is applicable in deferral prosecutions. In Weeks v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that when the authorities illegally seized item from Weeks’ residence, they violated his constitutional rights. The Fourth Amendment was also violated by the authorities in doing so. In Weeks v. United States, the issue focused on two questions, did the federal officer violated Week’s constitutional right by entering his house without warrant and is it possible for the federal government to use whatever they obtained from the warrantless search to nail Weeks …show more content…
in his trial? During the trial, Justice Day said that the indictment against the plaintiff had nine error counts. On the seventh count, Weeks was convicted with using his mails to transport tickets for lottery. The case of Weeks started when he got arrested on December 21, 1911. He was an employee of an express company and he was arrested at the Union Station in Kansas City. As he was detained, there were officers who went to Weeks’ house without warrant, took some papers and articles from his house and gave it to the US Marshal. The marshals were not happy with their first trip to Weeks’ house so after a few days, they went back again still without warrant to search his house. When they found some letters and envelopes from his house, they took it. According to the US Marshals involved, the paper they took were evidences of Weeks’ illegal activities, transporting lottery tickets through mail. In his petition after the trial, Weeks requested for the illegally seized documents to be returned to him. Prior to the trial of Weeks, all evidences gathered by the authorities can be used to convict the offender. According to law experts, this was a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment because during trial, the right of the person being questioned became secondary and the punishment became more important. After explaining this to the court, the Supreme Court ruled that everything taken in Week’s house without proper warrant were inadmissible in the court during the trial. In short, J.D (1997) said that the use of warrantless evidence is a clear denial of the constitutional rights of the offender hence no evidence was used against Weeks. Since there were no evidence presented to the court, Weeks was freed. Conclusion The evidences that the US Marshals took from Weeks’ home clearly showed his activities of transporting lottery tickets. Unfortunately, they were not able to use the said evidence because of the way they took it. The important lesson here is to always play fair, seek warrant before entering and searching someone else’s home so as not to throw away your best chance of nailing a suspect with evidences. Always remember, even offenders have their own rights given by the fourth amendment. Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States In Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States case, there were two questions as well: can the prosecution use the illegally obtained evidence against Silverthorne Lumber Co and would it be possible for the court to use illegally obtained evidences against the defendants? In previous cases, no matter how the evidences were gathered as long as there is an evidence to prove that you are guilty, you can be convicted. It was only when the Fourth Amendment was passed the right to be protected against illegal searches were honored in the court of law. In this case, Justice Holmes ruled out that Silverthorne Lumber Company needs to pay a fine of two hundred and fifty dollars while the owner of the company, Frederick W. Silverthorne needs to serve prison time. According to Judge Holmes, the decision was due to the fact that Silverthorne refused to produce books and documents during trial for the grand jury to decide. Silverthorne cited his rights under the fourth amendment as his cover in not giving information to the jury because he believed that the initial evidence was gathered by the authorities by doing illegal search warrant inside his company. Silverthorne was arrested on the 25th of February from their home. He was detained for a couple of hours while the US marshal and Department of Justice searched the lumber company and their office. The authorities confiscated documents and papers they thought would be evidences against the Silverthorne’s without any written order or search warrant. The evidences gathered during the warrantless search were passed along to the District Attorney’s office. The District Attorney’s office presented all evidences and tried to make a case against Silverthorne based on the copies of evidence they got during the warrantless search. The DA presented the evidences in copied form. During trial, the District Court demanded that all original copy of the said file should be submitted by Silverthorne. A subpoena was sent to the Silverthorne’s to send the original copies. The Silverthorne refused to do so. The court demanded on the subpoena that the Silverthorne should comply despite the fact that the initial evidence was gathered without warrant. The DA’s office definitely obtained all the evidence wrongfully but they did not use it directly, rather they asked the Silverthorne’s to present the original copy. The court though admitted that it cannot use the photocopies and images that were obtained illegally. However, when the Silverthorne’s refused to send Conclusion The case of Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States describes a “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine. This doctrine means that any evidence gathered illegally is a clear violation of rights of an individual and that right is protected by the Fourth Amendment (Tobin, 2007). The government then cannot use any evidence seized illegally because it violated both the constitutional right of the individual and the fourth amendment. Mapp v. Ohio For Mapp v.
Ohio case, the question was whether evidences obtained illegally through warrantless search can be used or not. The case focused on Mapp and how the Cleveland police illegally enter her home, look for evidences that does not exist and found something else which they decided that they can use against Mapp. The case was heard by Justice Clark where Mapp was convicted guilty of possessing obscene literature and images which at the time was illegal in the state of Ohio. According to the Supreme Court of Ohio, the evidences gathered used to convict map was obtained illegally during a warrantless seize operation at Mapp’s house. On the 23rd of May 1957, Mapp and her daughter were home when three Cleveland police came to their house. After knocking on their door, the police demanded to enter their house. According to the police, they have an information about a bombing suspect that was hiding in their home. The police also said that there was an illegal gambling equipment inside their home. Before Mapp allowed them entry despite them forcing her, she called her lawyer and was advised to demand for a search warrant before allowing them to come in. The police cannot show any warrant hence she refused entry. The police officers cannot do anything with her refusing to grant them
entry. Since declined, the police stayed outside Mapp’s house for few hours until more police arrived. Four police officers arrived and with their help, they forced the door open when Mapp refused to open it. The police officers started breaking her door so they can come in. Mapp again demanded for a warrant and the police just flashed a piece of paper in front of her. When she tried to get hold of it, they put a handcuff in her hands. The paper was blank. The police search the entire house and found nothing of what they accused her. They then found the obscene literature and images which is considered illegal in the state of Ohio. The police arrested her and was charged for the said case. The Cleveland police said she violated the law of Ohio and that she needs to be in prison and be charged. The Ohio Supreme Court ruled that Mapp’s conviction should be overturned because the way the evidences were gathered was illegal and the method employed by the police officers were unjust. The court also applied the federal Exclusionary rule to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause stating that evidences gathered illegally or without warrant is not acceptable in the court of law and cannot be used against the person. This means that the case against Mapp cannot be pursued because the evidence was gathered illegally. References: Wright, J. (2012) Introduction to Criminal Justice, E-text version, San Diego, CA: Bridgepoint Education, Inc., Retrieved from http://content.ashford.edu Criminal Procedure and the Supreme Court: A Guide to the Major Decisions on Search and Seizure, Privacy, and Individual Rights. Hemmens, Craig. Dated 10/2010. http://site.ebrary.com.proxy-library.ashford.edu/lib/ashford/docDetail.action?docID=10404842&p00=weeks v. united states https://a.next.westlaw.com/Document/Ib4656ca69cc011d991d0cc6b54f12d4d/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=Search%2Fv3%2Fsearch%2Fresults%2Fnavigation%2Fi0ad705200000013d9e2bc13e488f9a1e%3FNav%DCASE%26fragmentIdentifier%3DIb4656ca69cc011d991d0cc6b54f12d4d%2 25 Doctrines of Law You Should Know. Tobin, Philip Chase. Dated 2010. http://site.ebrary.com.proxy-library.ashford.edu/lib/ashford/docDetail.action?docID=10476778&p00=fruit tree doctrine
In the Lexington, Kentucky a drug operation occurred at an apartment complex. Police officers of Lexington, Kentucky followed a suspected drug dealer into an apartment complex. The officers smelled marijuana outside the door of one of the apartments, as they knocked loudly the officers announced their presence. There were noises coming from the inside of the apartment; the officers believed that the noises were as the sound of destroying evidence. The officers stated that they were about to enter the apartment and kicked the apartment door in in order to save the save any evidence from being destroyed. Once the officer enters the apartment; there the respondent and others were found. The officers took the respondent and the other individuals that were in the apartment into custody. The King and the
The issue that this case raises, is whether or not the officers had the right to search the car of a person who they just arrested, while the person is handcuffed and placed in the back of a squad car?
This case is about Scott Randolph, who’s home was searched without a warrant. Due to this “corrupted” search, police ended up finding cocaine in his home. As a matter of fact both Randolph and his wife Janet Randolph were present during the search, it’s stated that Randolph’s wife gave permission to search the house. However Randolph denied to give that consistent, but police believed that the wife’s permission was all they needed. After the encounter with the drugs, Randolph was arrested for drug possession. This case was taken to trail and both the appellate court and Georgie Supreme court believed that the search of Randolph's home was unconstitutional.
The court for this case found that the search and seizure of the stereo violated the fourth and fourteenth Amendments. The Decision was 6 votes for Hicks and 3 votes against.
Second, the search of Hicks home did not include a search warrant, and in Meyers case the police did have a search warrant. In Myers case, police had a lawful search warrant to search for drugs and drug paraphernalia. During that search police located a bloody rag, which was sent for testing. The results of this test revealed the blood belonged to a murder victim, implicating Myers for suspicion of murder. Although the police did have a search warrant, the warrant only listed drugs, and paraphernalia.
After arriving at Miss Mapp’s residence and failed to gain permission to enter the residence the three Cleveland police officers should have gone to the DA and retrieved a real search warrant. The fact that they tried to pass off a piece of paper as a search warrant is useless and everything that they find cannot be used against her in court. All of the paraphernalia regarding the bombing that they found is useless because of the pursuant search warrant. Because Miss Mapp did not answer the door when they came back they forced their way into the house and conducted an illegal search. When Miss Mapp’s attorney arrived the police officers would not let the attorney into the house. When Miss Mapp grabbed the purported search warrant the police officers struggled with her to retrieve it and did. Miss Mapp was then placed under arrest as the police conducted a widespread search of the residence wherein obscene materials were found in a trunk in the basement. Miss Mapp was convicted of possessing these material...
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...
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.
Ohio is a united state that the Supreme Court that there decision concerning evidence to obtained as a part of unlawful arrest. So the story is kind of different from just two guys just standing around and looking at the window more than 24 times. But it had the samething like the police officer taking steps to assure himself that the person has a concealed weapon that can harm self and so he unexpectedly and fatally have been used against the him. Sure it will be like the terry vs. Ohio case and so that lead to an unreasonable search and that can risk the
There are records of many cases that has created controversies over reasonable or unreasonable searches and seizures. As stated in the fourth amendment,
Search and seizure in Canada has evolved into the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as an important asset in the legal world. The case of R v. TSE sets an important example of how unreasonable search and seizure is in Canada. An important section that relates to this case is s. 8. The main concerns with this case are whether the police abuse their powers to search and seize Yat Fung Albert Tse, the fact that when the police did enter into the wiretap they did not have a warrant and also that it is a breach of privacy without concern.
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.
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.
Police conducted a routine traffic stop which led to the arrest of Willie Davis for giving a false name to the police. Davis was handcuffed and placed in the back of a patrol car. The police searched the passenger side of the vehicle and found a revolver in the pocket Davis’ jacket. Davis was convicted of “Felon in Possession of a Firearm” which he appealed to the appellate court on the grounds that the search violated his Fourth Amendment rights.
...’ 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.