The Exclusionary Rule: Enforcing The Fourth Amendment

The First Amendment is the most important, because of freedom of religion and freedom of speech. Many people think that the fourth amendment is the most important. They think this, because it is important for a person to be able to tell policemen “No” if they ask you if they could search your car or your house. I believe that the fourth amendment is really important, but you wouldn’t be able to tell the policemen “No” if you didn’t have freedom of speech. George Washington said,”If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be, like sheep to the slaughter” (“Famous Quotes Freedom of Speech”).Without freedom of speech and religion we are nothing.

In the case of Weeks v. United States on December 21, 1911 in Kansas City, Missouri Freemont Weeks was arrested at his job on suspicion of transporting lottery tickets through the mail, meanwhile officers were entering into his residence without his permission or a warrant. Weeks took this case to trail to petition for the return of his private possessions. If the court decides to not return his property he could be convicted of transporting lottery tickets through the mail which is illegal in Missouri. But this is a violation of his 4th Amendment rights if the court decides to use the evidence they was seized illegally.

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.

Mapp v. Ohio Throughout the last 70 years, there have been many cases that the U.S. Supreme Court has decided upon leading to many advancements in the U.S. Constitution. Many of the cases have created laws that we still use today. In the case I chose, Dollree Mapp was convicted of possessing obscene materials, four little pamphlets, a couple of photos, and a little pencil doodle, after an illegal police search of her home for a suspected bomber. No suspect was found, but she was arrested.

Due to cases such as Terry v Ohio and Mapp v Ohio, when police found criminating evidence through an illegal search or obtained proof of a crime through an illegal entry of the home, according to the Supreme Court, this evidence cannot be brought to trial. The Terry v Ohio case decided 8-1 on the grounds of the officer having “a hunch” that Terry had a weapon, this was ruled unconstitutional. Mapp v Ohio was decided 6-3 with the premise “[The Supreme Court] declared that "all evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Constitution is, by [the Fourth Amendment], inadmissible in a state court."” (Oyez-Mapp). The punishment of police officers and law enforcement has ranged from lawsuits by the victim, consent decrees, citizen review boards, or, rarely, prosecuting the officer (England).

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).

The Fourth Amendment requires a probable cause for arrest. Substantially, particular things are needed to legally conduct a search or seizure. This incorporates arrest, so a search, a seizure, or an arrest cannot take place without reason. Not to mention, there must be a "court order" for Apple to give the government "customer data." So, since a “court order” must be in place for Apple to give the government “customer data,” that “court order” would have to also take place for an arrest that could conceivably follow.

The decision supported the idea that the securities of the federal Bill of Rights are guaranteed against the states, through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Due to the vagueness of the Fourth Amendment, the range of interpretation for the exclusionary rule has been a topic of courts and since the 1980s. In time courts have narrowed the range of circumstances and types of evidence to which the rule

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).

The Fourth Amendment clearly states that the police must have a warrant to search a someone’s home and personal belongings. Though the police had probable cause, the murder they intended to find could not be located in Mr. Dexter’s car. The police and investigators searched Mr. Dexter’s car without obtaining a search warrant because they did not have enough time to get one. In the car they found a gun that did not relate to the

The fourth amendment can be beneficial but, it can also to some U.S. citizens be invasion of privacy. The 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,” some U.S. citizens believe that Law Enforcement, the Government and the NSA are violating the required guidelines of the Fourth Amendment. The NSA is conducted a mass U.S. surveillance not to believe specific individuals may be engaging in terrorist activity, but instead to believe all of us may be engaging in such activity. The government mass surveillance proves that U.S. citizens are considered suspects at all times. With the Patriot Act the NSA has access to

Therefore, the only way a search and seizure of a citizens’ private property is legal is with a reasonable exception. Furthermore, the Fourth Amendment keeps the belongings of American people secure from warrantless searches and

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 primary rights the exclusionary rule works to protect are the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. The Fourth Amendment protects citizens against unreasonable searches and seizures, while the Fifth Amendment protects citizens from self-incrimination (Gardner & Anderson, 2015). When it is determined that police officers or other government agents violated a defendant’s rights in order to collect evidence, the defense attorney can address this issue and possibly have the evidence deemed inadmissible. An extension of the exclusionary rule is the derivative evidence rule, which is also known as the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine. This doctrine extends inadmissibility of evidence that was gathered indirectly from police misconduct.

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.