Overview Of The Court Case: Silverthorne Lumber Company V. United States

We will be discussing constitutional policing and we will look at different court cases and address four different areas. These will be discussing the main issue or question in the case, explain the precedent or law that was used to come to the final conclusion, explain how the court applied the law to the facts of the case and identify the conclusion and restate the issue to provide the final answer which is how have these three cases formed the standards of constitutional searches and seizures in the United States? First let’s discuss what constitutional policing is, “the legal problem of policing is how to regulate police authority to permit officers to enforce law while also protecting individual liberty and minimizing the social

United States. This case dealt with the district court fining the lumber company money and also ordering the owner Frederic W. Silverthorne to be jailed until he could purge himself of a similar contempt. “The contempt in question was a refusal to obey subpoenas and an order of Court to produce books and documents of the company before the grand jury to be used in regard to alleged violation of the statutes of the United States by the said Silverthorne and his father (Silverthorne V. United States, 1920).” Frederic and his father were arrested at their houses, and while they were being arrested officers of the Department of Justice and U.S. Marshals raided the offices of the company. They made a clean sweep of all the books, papers and documents found there. The employees were taken or directed to go to the office of the District Attorney of the United States to which all the evidence was taken to, at the heart of the matter in this case was can evidence obtained illegally be used in court against the defendants. It was argued that court infringed the rights of the parties under the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. Using other cases like Week V. United states the Supreme Court overturned the lower courts judgment was overturned. “It was thought that a different rule applied to a corporation, on the ground that it was not privileged from producing its books and papers. But the rights of a corporation against unlawful search and seizure are to be protected even if the same result might have been achieved in a lawful way (Silverthorne Lumber Company V. United States, 1920).” Now on to the last case which is Mapp V.