Search and Seizure
Before stepping into someone’s house or property, officers of the law must obtain a search warrant. This is outlined in the Fourth Amendment. Evidence collected at an unlawful search is usually inadmissible in court. Two Layton police officers violated the Fourth Amendment when they stepped in the house of Chelse Brierley to question and arrest her in Utah. She was a suspect in a hit-and-run DUI crash in 2013. The vehicle involved was spotted by a witness in Brierley’s garage. When the officers arrived they were met by a cleaning lady that said Brierley was in the back room. She left to go get her. When she came back the maid told the officers that Brierley told her to say that she wasn’t there. The maid then left to get Brierley’s father’s phone number, leaving the door open. The officers then stepped inside and began looking around. This was illegal without a warrant. When the maid returned, Brierley …show more content…
One of the officers was drafting a search warrant, but in the meantime, they still entered the property. The correct protocol was to wait for Ms. Brierley to come out on public property or wait for the warrant to be granted by a judge. During the hearing, Brierley’s attorneys pleaded the exclusionary rule because the evidence was obtained without a warrant. The judge did approve it, but later the city appealed to the Utah Court of Appeals, which overturned the judge’s ruling and reinstated the evidence. The court stated that in certain situations, there are exceptions to the exclusionary rule. The exception was the inevitable discovery rule. It was stated the evidence is admissible because it would have been inevitably been discovered lawfully, in spite of its unconstitutional seizure. The exclusionary rule would have been applied if the officers said they had a warrant, making the suspect give up something that she otherwise wouldn’t when they didn’t have
Before stepping into someone’s house or property, officers of the law must obtain a search warrant. This is outlined in the Fourth Amendment. Evidence collected at an unlawful search is usually inadmissible in court. Two Layton police officers violated the Fourth Amendment when they stepped in the house of Chelse Brierley to question and arrest her in Utah. She was a suspect in a hit-and-run DUI crash in 2013. The vehicle involved was spotted by a witness in Brierley’s garage. When the officers arrived they were met by a cleaning lady that said Brierley was in the back room. She left to go get her. When she came back the maid told the officers that Brierley told her to say that she wasn’t there. The maid then left to get Brierley’s father’s phone number, leaving the door open. The officers then stepped inside and began looking around. This was illegal without a warrant. When the maid returned, Brierley …show more content…
One of the officers was drafting a search warrant, but in the meantime, they still entered the property. The correct protocol was to wait for Ms. Brierley to come out on public property or wait for the warrant to be granted by a judge. During the hearing, Brierley’s attorneys pleaded the exclusionary rule because the evidence was obtained without a warrant. The judge did approve it, but later the city appealed to the Utah Court of Appeals, which overturned the judge’s ruling and reinstated the evidence. The court stated that in certain situations, there are exceptions to the exclusionary rule. The exception was the inevitable discovery rule. It was stated the evidence is admissible because it would have been inevitably been discovered lawfully, in spite of its unconstitutional seizure. The exclusionary rule would have been applied if the officers said they had a warrant, making the suspect give up something that she otherwise wouldn’t when they didn’t have