Search and Seizure
I. The 4th Amendment – 2 relevant clauses:
a. Reasonableness Clause
i. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated
ii. All 4th Amendment activity requires reasonableness
b. Warrants Clause
i. 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
ii. This never indicates specifically when a warrant is required
iii. Not all 4th Amendment activity requires a warrant, but always must be reasonable
The Exclusionary Rule
I. Weeks v. US
a. This established the exclusionary rule in federal courts
II. Wolf v. Colorado (p, 217)
a. This officially applied the 4th Amendment to the states, but the suppression of evidence is not necessary in state courts to maintain due process.
III. Mapp v. Ohio (p. 219)
a. This expressly overrules Wolf
b. The 4th Amendment as incorporated by the 14th Amendment requires state courts to exclude evidence obtained by unlawful searches and seizures.
c. Wolf granted the right to privacy, but Mapp finally gave the enjoyment and privilege of this right.
d. This remedy may allow some criminals to go free, but it is the only remedy which will prove effective
i. It is unlikely anyone will take on the police for these violations
ii. It will appear the prosecutors are favoring criminals over victims
iii. Prosecutors will not be likely to prosecute the police that got them the evidence necessary for conviction
iv. When police officers are sued civilly it is the taxpayers who end up paying the cost.
IV. US v. Leon (p. 224)
a. This case established the Good Faith Exception
i. The 4th Amendment exclusionary rule does not bar the use of evidence obtained by officers acting in reasonable reliance on a search warrant issued by a neutral magistrate but ultim
the evidence which was found legitimately
b. Illinois v. Krull (p. 238) – when the arrest is made in pursuit of an unconstitutional law. The rule is not meant to deter legislators.
c. US v. Janis (p. 243) – in civil cases
d. Basically the rule only applies when it serves as an effective deterrent of police officers
i. Arizona v. Evans (p. 245) – not meant to deter mistakes by court clerk in entering information
ii. One 1958 Plymouth Sedan v. Pennsylvania (p. 242) – The rule does apply to criminal forfeiture cases, because this is a source of revenue for the police department
e. Hudson v. MI (supp. 61)
i. The exclusionary rule does not apply to knock and announce violations
1. The knock and announce rule is too vague (how long must the officer wait?)
2. Police officers are more professional and highly trained than when Mapp was decided, so the exclusionary rule is less relevant