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
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.
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.
The judicial review process is an important aspect of the US Court system. The process involves the use of powers by the Federal Courts to void the congress' acts that direct conflict with the Constitution. The Marbury v. Madison is arguably the landmark case that relates to Judicial Review. The Marbury v. Madison case was written in the year 1803 by the Chief Justice at that time named John Marshall. Thomas Jefferson won an election on the Democratic - Republican Party that had just been formed creating a panicky political atmosphere having defeated John Adams of the previous ruling party.
John Marshall’s Supreme Court hearings had a positive effect on the United States. From court cases like McCulloch v. Maryland, declared that the federal courts could decide if state laws were unconstitutional. The McCulloch v. Maryland trial went to the supreme court because Maryland had put a tax in place that too 2% of all assets of the bank or a flat rate of $30,000. John Marshall saw this tax as unconstitutional for the simple fact that people were being denied their property under the state legislature. From the Gibbons v. Ogden case, congress’s power over interstate commerce was strengthened.
I do agree with Justice Scalia’s principal argument for not using the exclusionary rule to the knock-and announce violations. I think in some cases that knocking on the suspect door can give them time to prepare themselves and maybe hide evidence. Yes, the rule is set to reduce property damage, but in some cases, officers can get shot if the people inside the house are aware that they are committing crime. For instance, if a person is a drug dealer, he sure knows that its illegal. So, having the officer knocking on his door, he probably won’t open or will open with a gun point out.
The exclusionary rule explain that collected evidence must not be a violation of the defendant’s constitutional rights or else it could be inadmissible in court. The four exceptions to the Exclusionary rule are the Good-Faith exception, the Plain-View Doctrine, Clerical Errors Doctrine, and the Emergency Searches of Property. The exceptions are used to protect officers if they do something in good faith or in emergency. However these exceptions are only used to protect the officers who acted in good faith. This exceptions cannot help officers if they acted with malicious intent.
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 President faces a challenging task when selecting nominees to the Supreme Court. David Yalof point out many problems in the nation, in the branches of government, and the President’s own circle what must be considered when making a nomination. Supreme Court nominees is the most public part of the nomination process. Yalof also states the changes the government has gone through, affecting the selection of Supreme Court nominees. Yalof talks about some Presidents from Truman to Reagan.
The Supreme Court priorities from the time period of 1790 to 1865 were establishing the Judiciary Act of 1789, which was instrumental in founding the Federal Court System. The framers believed that establishing a National Judiciary was an urgent and important task. After the installation of Chief Justice John Marshall who “used his dominance to strengthen the court 's position and advance the policies he favored” (Baum 20). However, in the decision of the landmark case of Marbury v. Madison in 1803 was an example of the power he exuded “in which the Court struck down a Federal statute for the first time” (Baum 20). This created some internal conflict between Marshall and President Thomas Jefferson, however Marshall was able to diffuse this with
Richard Bruno Hauptmann Incorrectly Convicted: The Unjust Reasons and Influences Behind This Court Decision Madelyn M. Von Wald Department of English, Harrisburg High School Composition 250 Mrs. Jessica Berg May 19, 2023 Richard Bruno Hauptmann Incorrectly Convicted: The Unjust Reasons and Influences Behind This Court Decision A jury condemned an innocent man to his death eighty-six years ago and his guilt still comes into question to this day.
In an effort to enforce the legality of law enforcement conduct, the judiciary established the exclusionary rule to bar illegally or unconstitutionally obtained evidence in a criminal trial (Jurkowski, 2017). The rule's primary purpose is to deter law enforcement from violating laws and infringing on the constitutional rights of citizens. There are, however, several exceptions to this rule. One such exception is that of good faith, in which the officer involved did not knowingly or deliberately violate a law or an individual's constitutional right; this is often the result of an honest mistake or a clerical error. In the 1984 case United States v. Leon, the authorities executed a search warrant which was later found to be invalid due to insufficient
Lastly the fourth amendment gives protection to the person during a search and it prevents unlawful items taken or seized to be used evidence in a case. (Searches and Seizers and the Fourth Amendment) The fourth amendment also doesn’t protect everything. One of the only time that a person is not protected under the fourth amendment is when that person consents to the search. Under the law that person who consented, so the people in authority didn’t need to get a search warrant and anything that the person authority finds can be used against them in court.
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.
Courts prove unsuccessful in achieving social change due to the constraints on the court’s power. Rosenburg’s assessment that courts are “an institution that is structurally challenged” demonstrates the Constrained Court view. In this view, the Court’s lack of judicial independence, inability to implement policies, and the limited nature of constitutional rights inhibit courts from producing real social reform. For activists to bring a claim to court, they must frame their goal as a right guaranteed by the constitution, leading to the courts hearing less cases (Rosenburg 11). The nature of the three branches also creates a system of checks and balances in which Congress or the executive branch can reverse a controversial decision, rendering the Court’s impact void.
