Exclusionary Rule In The Weeks V. United States Case

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

A Washington police officer stopped a student at the Washington State University after observing the student was carrying a bottle of gin. After asking the student for identification the student informed him that is was in his dorm room. The student, followed by the officer, then went into his room get his identification. While the student was searching for his identification, the officer noticed that the student 's roommate, had marijuana seeds and a pipe on his desk. The officer asked the students if they had additional drugs in the room and the students provided him with a box with marijuana and money. Another officer arrived on the scene and they search the student’s room and found additional drugs. The student (roommate of the original student) was charged with possession of a controlled substance.

The case of California v. Greenwood involves police who were investigating a potential drug trafficker, Greenwood. The police, who were acting on information that suggested that Greenwood could possibly be engaged in narcotics trafficking, obtained trash that Greenwood had left on the curb in front of his home. Considering the trash included items indicative of narcotics use, the police then obtained warrants to search Greenwood’s home, discovered controlled substances during their searches, and subsequently arrested respondents on felony narcotics charges.

The case of Florida versus Jardines was heard before the Supreme Court on October 31, 2012 and a decision was made on March 26, 2013. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Jardines. This case challenged the fundamental core of the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable search and seizure. The ruling of this case has impacted how law officials handle searches and the use of drug dogs. This case also challenged the boundary line of where personal property starts. This case is regarded as one of the influential cases in the interpretation of fourth amendment.

Pp. 5–28. (a) A warrantless search is reasonable only if it falls within a specific exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement. See Kentucky v. King, 563 U. S. ___, ___. The well-established exception at issue here applies when a warrantless search is conducted incident to a lawful arrest. Three related precedents govern the extent to which officers may search property found on or near an arrestee. Chimel v. California, 395 U. S. 752, requires that a search incident to arrest be limited to the area within the arrestee’s immediate control, where it is justified by the interests in officer safety and in preventing evidence

Before 1948 Julius A. Wolf had been arrested and tried for reasons not stated in the Supreme Court case, but the evidence that was used against Wolf was taken unlawfully, the police had no warrant for his arrest as well as no warrant to search his office. Wolf was able to get an appeal to be tried one more time.

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Consitution is the part of the Bill of Rights that prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and requires any warrant be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause. The common misconception is that it simply covers what it states. In the age of development and new technology, it is likely that what we consider secrets or personal information is not as secret or personal as we once believed. Important pieces of evidence or information have often been found through illegal means, and this has led to many cases that change the way the constitution and the Fourth Amendment affect

Would you like your home to be searched in the middle of the night and have all of your stuff thrown on the ground just because a police officer may think that you have been doing something illegal? Luckily your Fourth amendment right protects you from this ever happening. The purpose of the Fourth Amendment is to protect U.S. citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. During the revolutionary war the British had imposed the writs of assistance which was a law that gave British government much more power over American Individuals. Americans were very unhappy with the writs of assistance because many would be thrown in jail without reason or a very weak one and their property would be destroyed by British officials who

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 exclusionary rule is a deterrent against searches and seizures. Any evidence that is gained through an illegal search or seizure is now inadmissible in criminal proceedings, per the exclusionary rule. Supporters of the exclusionary rule argue that it helps prevent illegal searches and seizures against law enforcement. Those against the exclusionary rule argue that the exclusionary rule keeps criminals out of jail and there are other preventative measures such as suspending police officers without pay, dismissing them from a case, or in extreme circumstances terminating employment of officers who violate the Fourth Amendment.

On July 4, 1776 the Declaration of Independence was signed and The United States of America declared itself a separate and independent nation. On June 21, 1788 the United States Constitution was made official, replacing the Articles of Confederation. Since its ratification, the Constitution has been amended several times in order to better apply to current times and situations the Founding Fathers could not have predicted. Despite all the changes the Constitution has gone through, its core principles remain.

Reasoning: The police without a warrant or probable cause removed a subject from his home and transported him to the police station, where he was not free to go, although he was there briefly for questioning, In addition fingerprinted him. This violated his fourth and fourteen Amendment rights. The courts made impermissible Use of the testimony even if law enforcement had reasonable suspicion.

"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 place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized". The 4th amendment was made based on the Founding Fathers ' experience with the Kings agents and the all purpose writ of assistances that they used abusively. Without the 4th amendment, we would be at the mercy of the police because they could come into our household, search anything and take whatever they want.

The period the affiants were involved in observing, documenting and piecing together different parts of evidence necessary to form a probable cause as to the conduct of the suspects is sufficient and meets the test of “acting in good faith” to obtain the warrant to search the person of the defendant and vehicle and are not in any violation of the defendant fourth amendment right to privacy.

An exaplple of n the fourth amendment was being violated is the case, Burdeau v. McDowell, 256 U.S 465, 475 (1921) is the case that stared the debate of public and private searches. this case is about a privtae person enterning and searching McDowell 's office. he seized specific papers and turned them over a public prosecutor who wantted to use it in court. Since eveince was not a pursuant and the government did not play a role in the prcoess of the searcha nd seizure the court ruled for the papers to be returned. This case was not successful because the search and seizure wnet againist the fourth