This paper examines constitutional protections in a criminal case involving an illegal search of a residence and subsequent burglary conviction. It analyzes the Fourth Amendment's guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures, the exclusionary rule that bars illegally obtained evidence, and the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause. The paper traces key Supreme Court precedents including Weeks v. United States and discusses the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine, concluding that evidence obtained through warrantless searches violates constitutional rights and should be inadmissible in court proceedings.
A suspect was arrested for burglary of a neighbor's apartment in California. The neighbor, who was a friend, forced open the door to the suspect's apartment and discovered property stolen from his own residence. The neighbor called the police, who arrested the suspect for burglary and possession of stolen property. The officer's concern was that the suspect would dispose of the evidence before a search warrant could be obtained. The conviction was upheld in both state and federal court. The appeal now before the U.S. Supreme Court raises two critical issues: whether evidence obtained through the warrantless search is admissible and whether the suspect was denied equal protection under the law.
The suspect argues that he was denied equal protection under the law. As part of the Fourteenth Amendment, the equal protection clause provides that no person shall be denied equal protection of the laws. This is one of the most litigated provisions in constitutional law. The framers focused on racial issues when writing the clause in response to the Civil Rights Act of 1866, aiming to ensure equal protections to both white and black citizens. Today, the clause has a broader scope. The Supreme Court has interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment to mean that certain liberties all people possess must be protected by the government. Liberty, life, and the protection of property are civil liberties the government must provide; when it fails to provide these protections, it has failed to provide equal protection.
Under the Fourth Amendment, people have the right to be safe from unreasonable searches and seizures. This means that for any search or seizure of property, there must be probable cause, which must be proven before a judge. The exclusionary rule operates as a safeguard of Fourth Amendment rights. This rule states that evidence gained in violation of someone's rights cannot be used in court. The exclusionary rule was first applied in Weeks v. United States in 1914.
In Weeks v. United States, police entered the home of Mr. Weeks and seized evidence used to convict him of transporting lottery tickets via the mail. The search and seizure were conducted without a warrant. When appealed to the Supreme Court, the court ruled that the warrantless search and seizure of items from a residence violates the Fourth Amendment. The court further ruled that evidence obtained in this manner would be inadmissible in federal court.
Later, in Mapp v. Ohio, the exclusionary rule was extended to apply in state courts as well. Earlier cases such as Boyd v. U.S., 116 U.S. 616 (1886), also addressed unlawful searches. In Boyd, the Supreme Court ruled that a search and seizure was equivalent to a compulsory producing of private papers and that the search was unreasonable under Fourth Amendment guidelines.
The Fourth Amendment states that people have the right to protect their houses, persons, and property from unreasonable searches and seizures and that a warrant is required to search a person or their property. The warrant must be based on probable cause, supported by oath, and must state the place to be searched and the person or things to be searched for or seized. There are exceptions to the warrant requirement. These include searches conducted in plain view, searches with consent, and searches incident to a lawful arrest. An additional exception covers emergency situations or hot pursuit: evidence that can easily be disposed of, destroyed, or removed before a warrant can be issued may be seized without a warrant. Similarly, if a suspect enters private property while being pursued by officers, officers may enter the property to continue their pursuit.
In the case of the suspect, during investigation of the burglary, if it could be shown that the evidence would have been found through legal means, it might be admissible under the inevitable discovery doctrine. However, evidence would be admissible only if it would have been discovered through other lawful means besides a search warrant. This would be difficult to prove in this case, as there is no way to establish that the items seized would have remained in the residence without the neighbor's illegal search.
The officer did not have a warrant and was acting against the suspect's constitutional rights. To protect the suspect's Fourth Amendment rights, the evidence should not be used in court. In Segura v. United States, the Supreme Court addressed whether primary evidence from an illegal search was inadmissible (it was) and whether secondary evidence gained from a later search with a warrant was admissible. The court ruled that secondary evidence could be admissible if it was based on information known to officers before the illegal entry into the apartment.
In this case, if the neighbor had reported his suspicions to the police and a search warrant had been issued based on his testimony, a warrant might have been obtained lawfully. However, since he did not follow proper procedure, any evidence discovered through his illegal entry is inadmissible. Furthermore, if the warrant was issued based on the neighbor's testimony about stolen property in the suspect's residence, it would constitute "fruit of the poisonous tree" and would still be inadmissible due to the initial illegal search.
The neighbor committed a crime by breaking into the suspect's residence and therefore should be punished. The suspect may also have committed a crime by possessing stolen property, but the evidence obtained by the neighbor cannot be used because it was gained in violation of the suspect's constitutional rights. The neighbor should have contacted the police with his suspicions, and a warrant should have been requested through proper legal channels. Since no lawful search warrant was issued by proper authority, the officer had no grounds to search or seize property in the suspect's residence based on the neighbor's illegal entry.
The Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause provides that no person shall be denied equal protection of the laws. It does not exclude those who have committed a crime. The Fourth Amendment guarantees the right against unreasonable search and seizure. To rule against the suspect's claim that he was denied equal protection under the law would be to ignore these amendments and disregard the constitutional rights guaranteed to all citizens. The evidence used to convict the suspect was obtained illegally and therefore constitutes a violation of both his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
You’re 96% through this paper. Sign up to read the full paper.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.