ipl-logo

Should There Be Allowed To Obtain Evidence

632 Words3 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Support of the exclusionary rule

Any evidence that is obtained resulting from the use of illegally obtained evidence is not allowed to be used in court. Also, evidence that is seized, but was obtained through the violation of a person’s constitutional rights is not allowed to be used in court. These methods of obtaining evidence are made illegal by the exclusionary rule. There are many other regulations that stem from the exclusionary rule, such as the fruit of the poisoned tree rule, the inevitable discovery exception, and the good faith exception. All of these rules pertain to the guidelines of what evidence can and cannot be used in court depending on how it was seized or searched.
The fruit of the poisoned tree says that any evidence that can be used to incriminate a …show more content…

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. When a court allows a good-faith exception, they allow evidence that was technically obtained illegally, via an invalid search warrant, to be used in court if an officer seized said evidence in “good-faith”. If an officer acquired evidence in “good-faith,” this means that he or she was not aware of the invalid-ness of the search warrant. In contrast, if an officer is aware of the invalid search warrant, but still proceeds to attain evidence, the good-faith exception will not be applied and the evidence will not be allowed in

Show More
Related
899 Words | 4 Pages

This applies to Sam Wardlow’s situation in which evidence was founded illegally without a proper search warrant. Also, the weapon that was found in Sam’s bag does not relate to any prior crime that may connect him to. This is not in anyway, allowed for officer Nolan to have even stopped Mr.Wardlow. Possibly, if Sam was connected to a crime beforehand and if the officers did have a proper search warrant. Then there is no way Sam’s rights were violated.

Read More
519 Words | 3 Pages

The following essay will outline the variances of two case” Illinois v. Gates and Spinelli v. United States. It will discuss the Supreme Court requires to establish probable cause for a warrant. Illinois v. Gates In Illinois v. Gates, law enforcement received a letter (that was anonymous) stating that the Gate family was in the drug transporting business, and operating between the states of Florida and Illinois. Upon investigation, law enforcement discovered that Gates had made the purchase of an Air Line ticket, traveling to Florida.

Read More
247 Words | 1 Pages

Issue: Is the warrantless seizure of evidence in plain view considered prohibited

Read More
2406 Words | 10 Pages

Since the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in the Mapp case various other cases such as U.S v. Leon the “good faith” exception in 1984 and Nix v. Williams the inevitable discovery rule of 1984 have helped to modify the exclusionary rule handed down by the U.S Supreme Court stating that the original ruling interfered too much with the work of police officers (Pearson

Read More
475 Words | 2 Pages

And, federal law enforcement officials can even use the illegally obtained evidence against the defendant if local and state law enforcement officers did the search and seizure activity or if “federal law enforcement officials violated the

Read More
424 Words | 2 Pages

Case: New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985) Facts: A high school freshman (T.L.O) had her purse searched by the Assistant Vice Principal at her school because a teacher found her and another student smoking in the lavatory. The Assistant Vice Principal uncovered cigarettes and marijuana. Procedural history: T.L.O. motioned to suppress the evidence because her Fourth Amendment rights were violated and was denied by the Juvenile Court stating the search was reasonable. The Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court agreed there was no violation of the Fourth Amendment. The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed the decision stating the search was unreasonable.

Read More
463 Words | 2 Pages

Three related precedents govern the extent to which officers may search property found on or near an arrestee. Chimel v. California, 395 U. S. 752, requires that a search incident to arrest be limited to the area within the arrestee’s immediate control, where it is justified by the interests in officer safety and in preventing evidence

Read More
649 Words | 3 Pages

The California Court of Appeal later affirmed the convictions and denied the suppression of evidence on the basis of California Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Diaz. 3. Issue: The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable search and seizure. Riley involves whether police officers can search a suspect’s cell phone without a warrant during an arrest. In Riley v. California, the lower court ruled that a police officer not only can seize and secure a suspect’s cell phone during an arrest, but they can also search the contents of that phone without a warrant or probable cause.

Read More
551 Words | 3 Pages

This is a criminal case, in which the Supreme Court ruled that there was no probable cause to arrest Hayes. Hayes did not give consent to be taken to the police station and be detained plus fingerprint. Therefore, Hayed Fourth Amendment rights were violated and the conviction was overturned. Fact of the case: In the 1980’s there was a series of rape and burglary that happened in Punta Gorda Florida.

Read More
356 Words | 2 Pages

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).

Read More
596 Words | 3 Pages

Introduction: The United States Supreme Court cases of Brady v. Maryland, Giglio v. United States, and United States v. Agurs all deal with the prosecution's obligation to disclose exculpatory evidence to the defense. These cases establish that prosecutors have a constitutional duty to disclose all evidence favorable to the accused. Failure to disclose this information violates due process and can result in a new trial or acquittal.

Read More
1872 Words | 8 Pages

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.

Read More
807 Words | 4 Pages

Evidence that cannot be seen nor proven should not be legitimate in the court of law. In Herb Block’s Cartoon “I have here in my hand” Senator Joseph McCarthy is holding two pieces of evidence in his hands. In his right hand, he is holding a document

Read More
493 Words | 2 Pages

Ohio (1961), the Supreme Court trusted that the Constitution charged the exclusionary rule as a remaking of a Fourth Amendment infringement. They saw the truths of the sample, the exclusionary rule which was the assurance of somebody 's protection furthermore required by the Due Process which portrayed the Fourteenth Amendment. The rule stated three purposes by the Mapp Court, the right given by the constitution and stated that when police admitted that they were at fault, judges then extended the violations in court. This would stop misconduct for negligence since the case of Mapp the Supreme Court has seized out many exceptions to the exclusionary rule. I would agree with exclusionary rule, searches are easy to get permission from most defendants.

Read More
427 Words | 2 Pages

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.

Read More

More about Should There Be Allowed To Obtain Evidence

Related Topics

Open Document