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. 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 …show more content…
Even with the absence of a defendant local police and US federal agent entered Week residence without a warrant and seized evidence related to “illegal gambling which they wished to use against Weeks in a criminal gambling crime” (Ingram p.81). Before his trial, “Weeks requested the return of documents that the federal government sought to use against him, however his request was denied and he was eventually partly convicted based on evidence illegally taken from his residence” (Ingram p. 81). However, during his appeal before the United States Supreme Court Weeks argue that his Fourth Amendment rights was violated when federal agents seized the documents that was used as evidence against him in the trial court and the Court agreed and reversed Weeks
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysShow More
The majority opinion discussed the Fourth Amendment and explains now it provides the the ability to arrest individuals without a warrant when the officers have probable cause that a suspect has committed a criminal offense. During this traffic stop, the arresting officer determined a crime had occurred. It was up to the court to determine if the officer had probable cause to arrest Pringle. Chief Justice Rehnquist determined that the arresting officers proved a crime occurred and there was probable cause to determine Pringle should be arrested. According to Chief Justice Rehnquist, when three people are in the car where drugs are located and the owner of the drugs is not clear with no one admitting possession, it is reasonable for the officers to believe that either one or all of the occupants of the vehicle committed the offense.
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.
To which amendment to the constitution does the case relate? Mapp appealed her case to the Supreme Court stating that the 4th Amendment should be incorporated. The 4th Amendment prohibits against unreasonable searches and seizures, and during Mapp’s arrest, the police came to the founding of the evidence presented in the trial without a warranty. Fourth Amendment states: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the
The Supreme Court argued that the police officer had reasonable suspicion and searching the men was in the best interest of the officer for his protection. It was an eight to one decision, the one being William Douglas. He argued that they were giving too much power to police, and that there should be a court order for search and seizure. In this time period, stop and frisks were an everyday thing. Law enforcement broke the fourth amendment most of the time, abusing their badge that allowed them to search who they want, when they want, whether they were acting a certain way or not.
Issue: Whether the warrantless seizure and search of historical cellphone records revealing the location and movements of a cellphone user of the course of 127 days is permitted by the Fourth Amendment? Facts: In April 2011, a group of four men were arrested for a series of armed robberies in Michigan and Ohio. One of the four men confessed to the crimes, and he gave the FBI his number along with the number of everyone else involved in the crime. One of the people convicted in the crime was Timothy Carpenter.
THIS COURT SHOULD REJECT THE FOURTEENTH CIRCUIT’S TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES APPROACH AND INSTEAD APPLY A BRIGHT LINE STANDARD OF REVIEW TO DETERMINE WHETHER AN AUTHORIZED DRIVER OF A RENTAL CAR HAS STANDING TO CHALLENGE THE LEGALITY OF THE SEARCH The Fourteenth Circuit Court of Appeals improperly applied the totality of the circumstances approach in determining that Respondent Larry Nightingale has standing to assert a Fourth Amendment challenge to the search of the rental vehicle he was driving at the time of the traffic stop checkpoint. The Fourth Amendment requires that the one who is making the challenge of the legality of a search to prove that he was personally the victim of an invasion of privacy. Rakas v Illinois, 439 U.S. 128,
The conclusion was determined by the unlawfully seized evidence that was received without a warrant. Without a warrant, the information obtained could not be used in prosecutions of criminals in state courts. The five justices that voted in Mapp’s favor stated that the evidence seized was in violation of the fourth Amendment. A justice apart of the case, Justice Tom Clark said, “We hold that all evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Constitution [is] inadmissible in state court… Were it otherwise… the assurance against unreasonable…searches and seizures would be [meaningless].” Basically, Clark says that if you obtain evidence in a search that is not permitted and it is illegal, it is pointless because it cannot be used against a person in the court room to convict them because it violates the fourth
Colorado and Unreasonable Search and Seizure in California, attorney Robert M. Desky states, “The United States Supreme Court, in Wolf v. Colorado, ' held for the first time that "the security of one 's privacy against arbitrary intrusion by the police-which is at the core of the Fourth Amendment,” Desky continues, “But at the same time the Court held that the states need not observe the federal rule which excludes from criminal prosecutions evidence obtained by illegal search. The majority opinion explained away the federal exclusionary rule as "judicial implication" based upon the Fourth Amendment, while Justice Black, in a concurring opinion, characterized the rule as a "judicially created rule of evidence," a description which seems more consistent with the Court 's suggestion that it could be changed by Congress.” According to Mr. Desky’s statement, the court believed that the exclusionary rule, which determines whether or not evidence is excluded from a trial, was left only up to the federal government and not the states. Therefore the state courts could not exclude any illegal evidence from a
The 4th Amendment may be aggravating for the police, but on the other hand is beneficial for United States citizens. The 4th Amendment preserves protection, produces citizens to feel secure, and prohibits insignificant searches. Without the involvement of the 4th Amendment in the United States, government or authorities could invade privacy and go through citizen’s belongings without any type of
Fourth Amendment Is the exclusionary rule a benefit to us as a country or is it a hindrance to stopping criminals? When this country was in its infancy and we were part of another kingdom. We were being oppressed and harassed unnecessarily by the government. The present government at the time, which was the King of England was in the habit of searching people 's houses and persons, confiscating papers and effects without due process because they were attempting to stifle dissent (Gutzman, 2007).
He then petition the courts for the return of his property. Court unanimously held that the rights of the accused was violated when the officer enter the private residence without a warrant and seizure his personal property (Cornell University Law School, n.d). As a remedy to the direct violation U.S. Constitution Fourth Amendment by law enforcement the courts refused to allow the evidence seized to be present in the court case against the accused (Mr. Weeks) (Cornell University Law School, n.d). This believed to be the first the exclusionary rule” was used in the court of
In Katz v. United States, Charles Kats used a public telephone to phone-in illegal gambling bets. However, while placing these bets, Katz did not realize that the government was listening to his conversation. The FBI could listen to Katz place illegal bets because the agency tapped that specific phone. Following the recorded conversations, Katz was arrested and immediately taken into custody by the FBI. In response to the arrest, Charles Katz said the police had violated his rights as an American citizen; he claimed the FBI disrupted his right of privacy.
The police, therefore, violated the Fifth Constitutional Amendment that is a right against self-incrimination. Moreover, the suspects were not allowed the right to be represented by a counsel or lawyer as bestowed upon by the Sixth Amendment. The case is important in that it resulted to a change for law enforcement in America. Prior to the time the ruling was made, police and other individuals did not inform the defendants of their constitutional rights, where they questioned them privately, therefore, violating their
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated… We all know the fourth amendment. It's the amendment that guarantees our safety within our homes and our personal belongings. Yet, how much do you know about the fourth amendment? The fourth amendment is full of history, controversy, and discussion, even in modern day.
The police violated Wolf’s rights and since there was no warrant for arrest or warrant to search his office the police was trespassing. The police officer who violated his rights was to be punished by his superiors. The judges decided that using such evidence goes completely against the Fourth Amendment which is a basic need to our freedom. States should follow this law but are not directly forced to. States using evidence that should be excluded in their “statute becomes a form, and its protection an illusion,”(Wolf v Colorado, 1949).