Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
Support of the exclusionary rule
Mapp v. Ohio
Support of the exclusionary rule
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Support of the exclusionary rule
Mapp v. Ohio
Support of the exclusionary rule
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Support of the exclusionary rule
Worcester v. Georgia By Sydney Stephenson Worcester v. Georgia is a case that impacted tribal sovereignty in the United States and the amount of power the state had over native American territories. Samuel Worcester was a minister affiliated with the ABCFM (American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions). In 1827 the board sent Worcester to join its Cherokee mission in Georgia. Upon his arrival, Worcester began working with Elias Boudinot, the editor of the Cherokee Phoenix (the first Native American newspaper in the United States) to translate religious text into the Cherokee language. Over time Worcester became a close friend of the Cherokee leaders and advised them about their political and legal rights under the Constitution and federal-Cherokee treaties.
See State v. Spurgeon, 63 Wash. App. 503, 820 P.2d 960, 963 (1991). This is particularly true where a right is not found to be rooted in the state
WOOSTER — Could a case in Lorain County, where a federal and an appeals court upheld a county board of elections’ decision to keep an independent candidate off the ballot because he voted in a partisan primary, have an impact on the state representative’s race in Wayne County? Republican Scott Wiggam and independent candidate Stephen Spoonamore are running for the District 1 seat being vacated by Ron Amstutz. Controversy has surrounded Spoonamore’s candidacy because right after filing to run for the seat as an independent, he requested a Democratic Party ballot and cast a vote on it. Secretary of State Jon Husted, a Republican, broke a tie, ruling Spoonamore could not appear on a ballot. The Wayne County Board of Elections was split along party lines.
Facts: Police pull over a car with Joseph Pringle and two other people in the car, and Pringle was in the front seat of the car, when law enforcement officials search the car. Police officers discover in the car baggies of cocaine in the back seat of the car and $763 in the compartment up front. None of the three people in the car would confess to whom the drug belonged to and so all of them were arrested. When arriving at the police station Pringle admitted that the cocaine belong to him and then he was charged with intent to sell and possession of cocaine. Pringle then stated that there was no probable cause to arrest him, and the Maryland court system stated there was probable cause and proceed to convict him (Maryland v Pringle 540 U.S.
The state of Ohio followed that that the Fourteenth Amendment would apply in this case, but it did not since it
After going to trial the case was eventually brought to the Supreme Court where the evidence was thrown out because it was obtained illegally it was also noted that at the trial no search warrant was produced. Thus, sparking the Exclusionary Rule. Any evidence that is obtained illegally (in this case without a search warrant) has to be thrown out. (Supreme Court, 1961).
The police violated Wolf’s rights and since there was no warrant for arrest or warrant to search his office the police was trespassing. The police officer who violated his rights was to be punished by his superiors. The judges decided that using such evidence goes completely against the Fourth Amendment which is a basic need to our freedom. States should follow this law but are not directly forced to. States using evidence that should be excluded in their “statute becomes a form, and its protection an illusion,”(Wolf v Colorado, 1949).
41. Mapp v. Ohio (1961): The Supreme Court ruling that decided that the fourth amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures must be extended to the states. If there is no probable cause or search warrant issued legally, the evidence found unconstitutionally will be inadmissible in the courtroom and not even considered when pressing charges. The exclusionary rule, in this case, is a right that will restrict the states and not just the federal government, including the states in more of the federal rights as outlined in the Constitution.
The exclusionary rule was first established in the case of Weeks v. United States in 1914. During the trial, the Supreme Court ruled that the evidence obtained by the law enforcement officer was in violation of the Fourth Amendment and will be inadmissible in federal courts. This rule later became effective in the state courts in 1961 due to the unlawful search of Mrs. Mapp’s house in the case of Mapp v. Ohio. As a result of this case, Mrs. Mapp was convicted for possession of obscene materials but later argued that the law enforcement officer could not use the materials in the trial because they were obtained without a warrant. Although the exclusionary rule is not an independent constitutional right, it serves many purposes such as aiding in the deterrence of police misconduct and providing solutions to defendants whose
The duty of any criminal prosecutor is to seek justice. A conviction is the end of justice being served prior to sentencing; however justice cannot be served if an innocent person is found guilty. Even though the prosecutor(s) are there to represent the public and has the duty to aggressively pursue offenders for violations of state and federal laws, they shall never lose sight or their own moral compass of their main purpose is to find the truth. In the pursuit of truth, the United States Supreme Court has developed or made rulings in reference to several principles of conduct which have to be followed by all prosecutors to assure that the accused person(s) are allowed the proper procedures and due process of the law granted by the 14th Amendment.
The decision supported the idea that the securities of the federal Bill of Rights are guaranteed against the states, through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Due to the vagueness of the Fourth Amendment, the range of interpretation for the exclusionary rule has been a topic of courts and since the 1980s. In time courts have narrowed the range of circumstances and types of evidence to which the rule
The exclusionary rule is a lawful principle that the United States use, which expresses that the confirmation that was powerfully utilized by the police can 't be utilized in a criminal trial. The motivation behind why this is done it’s for the security of the established rights. In addition, the exclusionary rule states that in the Fifth Amendment no one "should be denied of life, freedom, or property without due procedure of law." The exclusionary rule additionally expresses that in the Fourth Amendment it is intended to shield residents from unlawful pursuits and seizures. It also applies to the infringement of the Sixth Amendment, which ensures the privilege to counsel.
Back in 1975, there was a major case called, Payton V. New York. Theodore Payton was suspected of murdering a gas station manager, they found evidence within his home that connected him with the crime. What caused the problem was the fact New York had a law that allowed unwarranted searches if the person was a suspect. Based off the oral argument presented by Oyez, the police said it didn't count as the evidence because it was in public view when entering the home. It had to be appealed before it was determined as unconstitutional.
The inevitable discovery exception says that illegally obtained evidence may be admissible in court if officers would have “inevitably discovered” the evidence, had they when about obtaining it in a lawful manner. Although this is a guideline that stems off of the exclusionary rule, it is not always promised to members of a trial that the exception will be allowed. It can take years to reverse an evidence exclusion ruling. In some cases, evidence may first be excluded as it is a violation of the exclusionary rule, but years later, the evidence may be admissible because it is an exception – as it would have been found in a legal way by law enforcement somehow or another. Another direct exception the exclusionary rule is the good-faith exception.
The exclusionary rule was made to protect people 's rights and ensure justice in court but there are exceptions. One exception to the exclusionary rule is inevitable discovery. The law of inevitable discovery states that even if evidence is obtained illegally, it can still be used against someone in court if the evidence was bound to be found one way or another. For example, if the police were searching for a fugitive and broke into someone 's house without a search warrant because they believed the criminal was inside the house, and find the criminal they can still arrest him because sooner or later they would of gotten a warrant to go inside the house they suspected him to be in. If the police have to go inside someone 's home to find an