In this case of Illinois v. Wardlow, Sam Wardlow, a 44-year old black man was wrongly searched after he was apparently seen acting ‘suspicious’ when he ran after he saw four police cars driving up. He was then chased by Timothy Nolan, a veteran police officer, as he believed Wardlow as guilty. The officers believed him to be in a ‘high crime area’. They caught up to Wardlow and frisked him. During the search, they found a handgun.…
Issue- Whether it was reasonable under the 4th amendment for the officers to enter a home without a warrant. Rule- Knock and Announce rule law enforcement has to knock and announce that they are police and wait a reasonable amount of time, usually seconds, before entering place before they search. (Wilson v Arkansas)…
Elizabeth, I do concede that Dripps model of the contingent exclusionary rule is fascinating; yet, it is my opinion that there are pros and cons. It is without doubt that the present exclusionary rule is controversial. I also concede that there isn’t a need to completely re-invent the wheel. Conversely, Dripps argues in regards of the contingent suppression order in which prosecutors would have to choose between accepting exclusion of evidence obtained through infractions of the Fourth Amendment or accepting the imposition of a damages judgment obtained through infractions of the Fourth Amendment or accepting the imposition of a damages judgment against the state under an administration of statutory damages (Tipton, 2010).…
In chapter six, the author examines searches for evidence. The fourth amendment commands the use of warrants. As previously stated, warrants usually consist of three elements to meet the fourth amendment standard. I believe the knock and announce rule is truly effective procedure because this standard can protect officers from injury and more than likely preserve physical evidence from being destroyed. This is also a valuable tool in preventing a high risk target from escaping the scene.…
(D) Even if this Court finds that the initial search and seizure is illegal under the Fourth Amendment, Evidence of the Suicide Note is still Admissible through the Attenuation Doctrine, as an Exception to the Exclusionary Rule The “fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine” is an exclusionary rule designed to deter police misconduct that prohibits the introduction of evidence that is causally connected to an unlawful search. (People v. Navarro (App. 2 Dist. 2006)…
First, the evidence is admissible even if it is obtained as a result of a warrant that is wanting in probable cause or is technically defective so long as the authorities have relied in objective good faith on a facially valid warrant. Leon, 468 U.S. at 897; Massachusetts v. Sheppard, 468 U.S. 981, 982 (1984). Second, the exclusionary rule is not employed when the nexus between the illegal police activity and attainment of the evidence is sufficiently attenuated so that the taint resulting from the misconduct is dissipated. Wong Sun, 83 S.Ct. at 417.…
Over 50 years ago, the exclusionary rule was introduced in the United States by the U.S. Supreme Court, and had contributed to many criminal court cases (“The fourth amendment,” n.d.). There are two important criminal cases that played a role in making the exclusionary rule possible, including Weeks v. United States and Mapp v. Ohio (1961) (“The fourth amendment,” n.d.). In the Weeks case, the defendant claimed the decision of a guilty conviction was established from evidence that was seized “without a warrant or other constitutional justification” (“The fourth amendment,” n.d., n.p.). The case was ultimately appealed and the defendant won the appeal because the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the guilty conviction, which led to the creation of…
And this isn’t the first time justice has been tainted because of this flaw in the judicial system. According to legaldictionary.com in an article titled “the Exclusionary Rule” it states “The Exclusionary Rule prevents the government from using evidence in trial which was derived from an illegal search, seizure, arrest, or interrogation.” This means any evidence found “the wrong way” is surpassed and inadmissible in a criminal trial. Now, many believe that this law is crucial in order to prevent our rights being stolen from us to obtain evidence in…
According to the majority of the Supreme Justice’s an illegal stop is justified and the exclusionary rules do not apply if the suspect has an outstanding arrest warrant and that the misconduct was not blatant. In other words, “the exclusion outweighs its benefits”. In addition, calculating the distance from the arrest to the residence and its further analysis is sufficient enough to justify the arrest and clarify the evidence as admissible (suffiecntly attenuated). In this case, the exclusionary rule did not help Edward Strieff. The question is whether the Supreme Court would have felt the same way, if the strife did not have an outstanding warrant.…
DAVID FALLSBAUER’S RIGHTS UNDER THE FOURTH AMENDMENT WERE VIOLATED BY THE POLICE OFFICERS, BECAUSE WHEN FACED WITH AMBIGUITY REGARDING THE A THIRD PARTY’S CONSENT TO SEARCH THEY FAILED TO MAKE A FURTHER INQUIRY. BY DOING SO, THE OFFICERS VIOLATED DAVID’S RIGHT TO PRIVACY. The primary question before this Court is whether police officers must make a further inquiry when faced with an ambiguity regarding a third party’s consent to search. The Federal Circuit Courts of Appeals have taken different views when deciding the actions a police officer must take when faced with an ambiguity pertaining to third party consent. It is crucial to our society that a person’s right to privacy is protected and able to be exercised.…
Exclusionary rules are important and these rules still have an impact and influence in the judicial system and were created as a response to the ways police gathered their evidence. Police arrest and prosecutors charge those accused of crimes and the Bill of Rights or first ten amendments include the exclusionary rule. The exclusionary rule is what prohibits the prosecutor from using any evidence at all that was illegally obtained for a trial. One rule of exclusion is the proper identification of suspects and the defendant’s having the right to counsel during a police lineup. Another rule is Miranda rights which inform a suspect of their legal rights which protect them.…
After a person is arrested, there are steps and processes that must be followed. One big part of the process includes searches and seizures. What in particular has to be noted when it comes to searches are the principles behind illegal searches, what can constitute a legal and illegal search, and when the lines can be blurred between the two. Searches are necessary to gather evidence. They play big roles in any investigation, but they must be conducted correctly.…
There are two kinds of searches and seizures that are allowed under the Fourth Amendment. The first is searches and seizures with a warrant. In order for a law enforcement officer to receive a search warrant, they must have probable cause that a crime is being committed. In the search warrant, it must specifically state what and where the items of a crime are located before the judge will grant the search warrant. The second search and seizure allowed under the Fourth Amendment is searches and seizures without a warrant.…
Amendment IV The fourth amendment is one of the primitive and mainly significant entitlements bestowed to the citizens of The United State of America; the law, distinctively states, “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.” What Does the Fourth Amendment Mean? The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution stipulates, the entitlement of individuals to be secure in their individualities, dwellings, documents, and possessions, against irrational searches…
To expound on the process of the Fourth Amendment, we must recognize and interpret its meaning. The Fourth Amendment is the protection of our citizen privacy against certain governmental interferences (Bohm & Haley, 2014, p. 105). The procedural rights of The Fourth Amendment are the search and seizure of citizens property and/or person in violation of the criminal law, with a meaningful interference by the government. There has to be probable cause. A search and seizure have to be within reason, with a descriptive warrant explaining exactly what is to be searched and seized, signed by a judge.…