Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
K. Comment: I agree with the majority opinion. The Constitution is the absolute guiding law of the land, and the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees that its protections will be extended to state actions. The Fourth Amendment guarantees a right to privacy and assures citizens that they will be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. The Fourth Amendment also imposes a warrant requirement for the majority of searches, so that most searches that occur without a warrant violate the Fourth Amendment. The search in this case certainly violated the Fourth Amendment, but whether or not the constitutional violations were as egregious as in this case should not be the determinant of whether evidence is excluded, because the Constitution absolutely bans all unreasonable searches and seizures. While the dissent suggests that other remedies can help a defendant who has been subjected to an unreasonable search and seizure, the fact is that none of those remedies can place...
However, the remedy that comes the closest is to exclude any evidence seized during such an illegal search, which places a defendant in the same position, in a criminal trial, as he would have been absent such an illegal search. Although the exclusionary rule may result in guilty people escaping prosecution and conviction, the Constitution was not written to enable prosecution and conviction, but to ensure personal liberty.
L. Principle: Evidence obtained as the result of searches or seizures that violate the Fourth Amendment is not admissible in state or federal criminal proceedings, because the Fourteenth Amendment extends Fourth Amendment protections to state criminal court proceedings.
Works Cited
Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961). http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=367&page=643
Mapp v. Ohio Facts: suspicious that the petitioner (Dollree Mapp) was hiding a bombing suspect and some paraphernalia that that may have been used to carry out a bombing in the state, Cleveland police went to her residence demanding to be allowed to conduct a search in regard to the same. The petitioner, after consulting with her attorney, refused to let them in because they did not have a warrant to
Mapp v. Ohio Citation of Case: 367 U.S. 643; 81 S. Ct. 1684; 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1961) Facts: Cleveland police came to Mapp's home on 23 May, 1957, acting on information that someone was hiding there. This person was wanted for questioning and the police had information that not only the person but the equipment used for a recent bombing was hidden in the home. They demanded to enter but Miss Mapp
Terry vs. Ohio Terry Vs Ohio The issue of what constitutes a violation of the fourth amendment forms the basis of the argument in the case of Terry vs. Ohio. In this case the petitioner Terry was stopped and frisked by the officer on the streets. A brief description of the situation is as follows. Detective McFadden was walking his beat when he observed two individuals who in his opinion were "casing"
In the case of Bowers v. Hardwick the United States Supreme Court failed to strike down Georgia's sodomy laws, as they applied to homosexuals, because rather than treat the matter as one of privacy rights, the court instead viewed the case from the perspective of whether there existed within the United States and its traditions, a right to engage in homosexual activity. In the Supreme Court's opinion, privacy in this
4th Amendment's evolution and history, together with the "search and seizure" law. 4th Amendment Background People's rights of being secure in personal effects, papers, houses and persons, against unreasonable seizures and searches, may not be breached, nor shall any warrants be issued, but in case of probable cause, which is supported by affirmation or oath, and describes, particularly, the place that must be searched, or the things or individuals that should
" The Fourteenth Amendment explicitly provided the same limitations on the individual state's as existed for the federal government in regards to civil liberties and protections, and therefore the same exclusionary rule based on the Fourth Amendment was held to apply to state proceedings. This directly overturned the ruling in Wolf v. Colorado, which stated explicitly that the Fourteenth Amendment did not disallow illegally obtained evidence from being used in