The Fourth Amendment of the United States was passed in 1789 and was later ratified in 1791. 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, 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, (National Constitution Center – constitutioncenter.org)” This amendment was passed to protect the people from unreasonable seizures but it wasn’t stopping illegally seized evidence from being used in court.
The exclusionary rule was later introduced in the 1914 case of Weeks v. U.S. The exclusionary rule states that any evidence that is illegally seized by the police will be inadmissible in a criminal trial. However at this time the rule was only applied to federal agents and the federal court system. Therefore, the rule was basically ineffective. The federal agents would simply ask state or local officers who were excluded from the rule to make an illegal seizure on their behave and then go on to use the evidence in court. This practice was referred to as the silver platter doctrine because the federal officers were receiving illegally seized evidence on a “silver platter” , so to speak. …show more content…
Ohio in 1961 that the exclusionary rule was applied to the states. In this case, officers forcibly entered a woman’s home and searched her house without a court issued warrant. During the search materials were found and taken. These materials were used in court that ultimately led to her conviction. The only exception to this rule is called Good Faith Exception. Which is for instance, “if an officer is acting under a search warrant that is later found to be legally defective, the illegally seized evidence is admissible, (LII / Legal Information
The exclusionary rule was later introduced in the 1914 case of Weeks v. U.S. The exclusionary rule states that any evidence that is illegally seized by the police will be inadmissible in a criminal trial. However at this time the rule was only applied to federal agents and the federal court system. Therefore, the rule was basically ineffective. The federal agents would simply ask state or local officers who were excluded from the rule to make an illegal seizure on their behave and then go on to use the evidence in court. This practice was referred to as the silver platter doctrine because the federal officers were receiving illegally seized evidence on a “silver platter” , so to speak. …show more content…
Ohio in 1961 that the exclusionary rule was applied to the states. In this case, officers forcibly entered a woman’s home and searched her house without a court issued warrant. During the search materials were found and taken. These materials were used in court that ultimately led to her conviction. The only exception to this rule is called Good Faith Exception. Which is for instance, “if an officer is acting under a search warrant that is later found to be legally defective, the illegally seized evidence is admissible, (LII / Legal Information