{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

DSST Intro to Law Enforcement

Exclusionary rule upheld in 1920 silverthorne lumber

Info iconThis preview shows pages 11–13. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Exclusionary Rule upheld in 1920 Silverthorne Lumber Co vs US in 1920, illegally seized evide nce was inadmissible in court c.ii. “Fruit of the Poison Tree” coined after this case, meaning if the search and seizure is illegal, then any evidence later produced as a result is also inadmissible in court c.iii. Exclusionary Rule applied to State Law enforcement in the case of Mapp vs Ohio in 1961, the 14 th Amendment ensures that constitutional rights apply to all citizens regardless of which state they live in c.iv. Mapp vs Ohio - Criminal Law Revoution – in which a series of decisions made by the 14 th Amendment’s due process clause made it applicable to state statues
Background image of page 11

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
c.iv.1. Mapp vs Ohio overturned a decision made by the Supreme Court 30 years earlier in Betts vs Brady, which stated that due process did not apply to states d. Good Faith Exception in - US vs Leon, in 1984 – when officers acted in good faith reliance on a warrant, the evidence will not be excluded even if the warrant was issued improperly d.i. Exclusionary Rule modified by the Good-Faith Exception in US vs Leon – even thought the affidavit lacked probable cause the police acted in good faith in executing the warrant e. Plain – View Doctrine - Officers are not permitted to move any objects to uncover further evidence e.i. Plain-View Doctrine – in the US Supreme Court decision of Harris vs US in 1968 – evidence in plain view of the officer who has a right to be in that position may be seized and introduced as evidence e.ii. US vs Irizarry in 1982 – the US Supreme Court held that evidence above a ceiling panel was out of place and outside the scope of plain- view doctrine e.iii. Horton vs California in 1990 - ruled that evidence obtained under the plain view doctrine need not be inadvertently discovered so that a seizure could be legitimate even though it was not listed on the search warrant. In this case they were looking for jewelry, and found firearms; which were admissible as evidence f. Chimel vs California – in 1969 – officers in possession of an arrest warrant may only search the Defendant and the physical area close to the defendant f.i. For protection of officers and to prevent the defendant from destroying evidence or escaping f.ii. An arrest warrant is one of three grounds for conducting a valid search g. US vs Rabinowitz in 1950 – US Supreme Court ruled that a warrantless search upon a lawful arrest was permitted as long as it was reasonable given the circumstances. g.i. Defendant was in his office, a single room, considered reasonable h. Warden vs Hayden in 1967 – the US Supreme Court recognized the need for emergency searches , an armed robber entered into a residence, the court ruled a warrant wasn’t necessary i. Wilson vs Arkansas in 1995 – the officers must knock and state their identity at the premises before entering, even if in possession of a search warrant, also guards the reasonableness search as guaranteed by the 4 th Amendment j.
Background image of page 12
Image of page 13
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Page11 / 13

Exclusionary Rule upheld in 1920 Silverthorne Lumber Co vs...

This preview shows document pages 11 - 13. Sign up to view the full document.

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