CASESTUDY - Columbia Southern University Heather A...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Columbia Southern University Heather A. Summerville Unit V Case Study BCJ 2001-11D-1A11-S1 Theory and Practices of Law Enforcement Professor Kim Clay 9 August 2011 “Police searches are governed by the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits all unreasonable searches and seizures and requires that all warrants be based on probable cause and that they particularly describe the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.” (Dempsey, Forst, 2011) More than a hundred years after its sanction, the Fourth Amendment was of very little value to the criminal defendants because of the evidence that was being seized by the law enforcement officials was still admissible during the prosecution of the defendant that was either in violation of the warrant that was issued or reasonable requirements The Supreme Court expanded the Fourth Amendment through its decision in Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 (1914). Weeks had been convicted based on evidence that was seized by federal personnel without a warrant or other reasonable explanation. The Supreme Court reversed his conviction, which in return created what is known as the “exclusionary rule.”
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
The exclusionary rule was then further expanded by the Supreme Court, in Rochin vs. Ohio, 342 U.S. 165 (1952). The misconduct of the police was revealed to be in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause when they forcibly seized evidence. Prior to the 1960s, the exclusionary rule rule was limited to the cases involving extreme police misconduct and federal investigations. In 1961, the Supreme Court, through its decision in the Mapp vs. Ohio, applied the exclusionary rule to the states, which expanded criminal rights. The exclusionary rule was developed to allow the courts a means of excluding incriminating evidence from being introduced at trial upon proof that the evidence was seized against the defendant’s rights. The exclusionary rule allows the defendant to challenge the admissibility of the evidence by bringing it in to a pre-trial motion to suppress the evidence. If the court denies his request, and allows the evidence to be introduced into the evidence, should the defendant be subsequently convicted, the defendant may then have cause to challenge the court’s decision and appeal. The defendant may win on appeal; however, the Court has ruled that double jeopardy rule does not apply. The evidence can still be used in a retrial since it was not suppressed due to the question of guilt or innocence. A relatively close doctrine to the exclusionary rule is the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine. (Dempsey, Forst, 2011) This doctrine allow the court to not only exclude evidence that was seized in violation of the Constitution, but also any other evidence that is obtained from an illegal search. For example, suppose a defendant is arrested for rape, but then later
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 10/26/2011 for the course BCJ 2002 taught by Professor Gauthier during the Fall '11 term at Columbia Southern University, Orange Beach.

Page1 / 6

CASESTUDY - Columbia Southern University Heather A...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online