ipl-logo

Summary Of The Supreme Court Case Of Davis V. The United States

632 Words3 Pages

The Supreme Court case of Davis v. the United States (2011) addressed the application of the exclusionary rule established that the exclusionary rule does not apply when the police conduct a search in when acting in good faith. This essay will summarize the case’s merits, examine implications for applying the exclusionary rule, and explore the impact of the exclusionary rule on law enforcement and the prosecution. Summary In Davis v. United States (2011), the Supreme Court determined the legality of evidence obtained during a traffic stop. Passenger Willie Davis gave a fake name to police, and the car was searched after officers smelt alcohol (Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229 (2011) 2011). According to the Mercer Law Review article “Davis and the Good …show more content…

The vehicle’s search was based on precedent that was eventually overturned; thus, Davis argued the firearm should be suppressed under the exclusionary rule as it violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The central question of the case was whether evidence obtained in a search that was conducted in good faith and reliance on binding precedent should be subject to suppression under the exclusionary rule (de Golian, 2012). The Supreme Court ruled that under the exclusionary rule, evidence is not excluded if during the search, it is obtained by officers who reasonably rely on a warrant that is later invalidated (Exclusionary rule 2022). How the Supreme Court Case Reflects on the Exclusionary Rule The Fourth Amendment’s exclusionary rule has historically operated as a deterrent against unlawful police behavior and safeguard individuals from government overreach. Davis v. The United States reflects the exclusionary rule by acknowledging challenges faced by law enforcement officers who interpret and apply complex precedent in real life situations. Davis acknowledges that not all constitutional violations can be used to justify the suppression of

Show More
Related
510 Words | 3 Pages

Significance: The Supreme Court here expresses that governmental conduct like drug dog sniffing that can reveal whether a substance is contraband, yet no other private fact, does not compromise any privacy interest, and therefore is not a search subject to the Fourth Amendment. Terry v. Ohio permits only brief investigative stops and extremely limited searches based on reasonable suspicion including seizures of property independent of the seizure of the

Read More
695 Words | 3 Pages

Although, the police officers had a search warrant they had it for the wrong unit which placed a family in danger and they raided the wrong unit in the first place but then raided the right one where they find the evidence but because it was found illegally the judge dismissed all of the evidence against Shakeel “Blam” Wiggins because of the Exclusionary Rule. Now the reason the evidence was dismissed was because there was no specific address on the warrant and this means that an officer cannot just search every unit in the multi-family house until they find evidence against the

Read More
316 Words | 2 Pages

In Wolf vs. Colorado the Supreme Court had decided that it did not. Illegally obtained evidence could be used in trials because the 4th amendment did not apply to states. The principle became known as the exclusionary

Read More
316 Words | 2 Pages

The case, Utah v. Strieff, A criminal case involving probable cause and the Fourth amendment was a case in Utah, where a narcotics detective made an arrest of a man, who was not actively involved in a crime but had frequented a suspected drug house. The suspect, Mr. Strieff had a previous warrant and was seen leaving the home where drugs are known. The detective, Officer Fackrell had been watching the home for over a week based on a tip of suspected drug activity. Officer Fackrell watched Mr. Strieff leave the house, walk to a store and proceeded to stop him, ask for his ID and called his name in to see if he had any warrants. He did have a warrant for traffic violation and the officer arrested him, searched him and found illegal drugs on him.

Read More
475 Words | 2 Pages

The Weeks v United States case was the Supreme Court basis in determining to incorporate the Fourth Amendment into the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause and apply the exclusionary rule in state cases. In this essay, I am going to discuss the reason why the Supreme Court determine that the exclusionary rule should apply to the state police activity. Prior to the case of Weeks v United States, the state police activity “were not limited in their conduct by the Fourth Amendment” (Ingram p.81) and the exclusionary rule of Fourth Amendments illegal search and seizure only applies to federal law enforcement officers. Basically, it means that state law enforcement officials can illegally search and seized criminal activity evidence and court don’t prohibit the use of illegally obtained evidence in the trial court.

Read More
1009 Words | 5 Pages

When Weeks was arrested, police officers entered his home without a warrant by using a key and began searching it for evidence. The officers then turned over evidence to the U.S. Marshals that was used to get a conviction. Weeks appealed the conviction which eventually came to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court ruled unanimously that the search violated Weeks rights under the 4th Amendment. This ruling also prevented local police officers from securing evidence by ways that are prohibited under the federal exclusionary rule and giving it to federal investigators.

Read More
453 Words | 2 Pages

Stop and frisk has been a highly conversed topic within the general public within recent years. Many people think that these are just a way to profile possible offenders and treat them as guilty before they do anything wrong. Our book describes how that is not true because a stop and frisk must meet certain requirements in order to be valid. A major case that was held in regards to stop and frisk was Terry v. Ohio and this case determined that a police officer must meet two requirements in order for the stop to be valid. The first one is that either a crime has been committed or will be committed and the suspect is possibly armed and dangerous.

Read More
285 Words | 2 Pages

The exclusionary rule can make evidence inadmissible in the court of law if that evidence was illegally obtained by a police officer. This protects an individual from unlawful searches and serves as an effective deterrent for police misconduct. One could argue that a mistake on the officer’s behalf should not result in the release of a criminal. This assertion would be reasonable if these fourth amendment violations committed by police officers were honest mistakes. Unfortunately, some illegal evidence is found because of deliberate misconduct by the police.

Read More
429 Words | 2 Pages

This is a landmark case as the State of Arizona argued the "bright line" rule was established in New York v. Belton, and the U.S. Supreme Court defined the "bright line" rule as to authorize law enforcement officers the right to search a vehicle's passenger compartment, including the immediate area of where the arrestee was in search incident to arrest, after a lawful arrest has been made and is a result of a contemporaneous incident.   In Chimel v. California, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that a search incident to an arrest is permissible as long as the officer can articulate safety for the officers is present and preserving evidence is a factor. Furthermore, Thornton v. United States gave an additive to law enforcement as the U.S Supreme Court ruled that officers could initiate warrantless searches of vehicles incident to arrest of both occupants and recent occupants (Staff,

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
1011 Words | 5 Pages

The New York Police Department’s use of “Stop-and-Frisk” is based on the Supreme Court case of Terry vs. Ohio in 1968. In this case, the Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment, prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures, is not violated when an officer stops and frisks a person on the street without probable cause to arrest, if the officer has reasonable suspicion that the person has or is about to commit a crime, and if he has reason to believe the person could be armed and dangerous. In recent years, the NYPD’s use of Stop-and-Frisk has been criticized as unconstitutional and a form of racial profiling. The NYPD’s name for Stop-and-Frisk is a 250, and it is an effective tactic for proactive policing, as evidenced by the decline in crimes

Read More
780 Words | 4 Pages

Court blocks ruling against NYPD's stop-and-frisk policy. Retrieved from http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/31/justice/new-york-stop-frisk/ BELLIN, J. (2014). THE INVERSE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE CONSTITUTIONALITY AND EFFECTIVENESS OF NEW YORK CITY "STOP AND FRISK". Boston University Law Review, 94(5), 1495-1550.

Read More
1159 Words | 5 Pages

The preventative landscape of Stop and Frisk is reinforced by Terry v. Ohio, has allotted police officers the authority that a person could be seized based on a reasonable suspicion that the suspect was involved in serious criminal conduct. However when applied to N.Y., empirical evidence regarding both the factors for and outcomes of stops and frisks in New York demonstrates that either the legal standard is too permissive or police-stop documentation is not truthful (Rudovsky). Stop and Frisk allows a great amount of power to officers to determine reasonable doubt which encompasses all criminal activity, no matter how trivial. The power provided to law enforcement to put into practice Stop and Frisk, allowing for more discretion in combating crime. While it does also set the tone for the abuse and misappropriation of stops, as “reasonable doubt” is a more

Read More
904 Words | 4 Pages

The general public is okay that some criminals go free if it means police will not violate the 4th amendment. The exclusionary rule states that any evidence obtained illegally shall not be used in the court of law. It also states any evidence found because of the piece of illegal evidence is invalid. The exclusionary rule was first introduced in federal courts with the case Weeks V USA 1919. The rule did not apply to the states until 1961 in Maps V Ohio when they stated it was arrogant to have a rule that only applies to federal courts.

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

More about Summary Of The Supreme Court Case Of Davis V. The United States

Open Document