The Exclusionary Rule

Superior Essays
The exclusionary rule acts as a control over law enforcement behavior and focuses on the failure of officers to obtain warrants authorizing them to conduct searches. Additionally, the exclusionary rule is grounded in the fourth amendment designed to protect citizens from illegal searches and seizures. The Fremont Weeks took place in 1914 and is considered as one of the first cases that the exclusionary rule was implemented. MR Weeks was arrested for using the mail to transport tickets for a lottery, which is a federal offense. He was arrested at his place of business, and federal officers did a search of his home and business without a warrant. The police confiscated many incriminating items as evidence collected from his residence and they …show more content…
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Fremont Weeks concluding that searching his residence without a warrant was unconstitutional and violating his fourth amendment rights. The United States Supreme Court decision would become the exclusionary rule barring the admission of evidence illegally obtained. The United States Supreme Court influenced the police by regulating how they conduct their searches in the future. A reasonable search is considered when the police have probable cause to believe that they can find evidence that you committed a crime and the judge may grant police a search warrant. Prior to Fremont Weeks case all of the evidence obtained regardless how it was seized was allowed all relevant evidence, regardless of how it was obtained. The Supreme Court reversed the defendant 's conviction, thereby creating what is known as the exclusionary rule. The exclusionary rule that was implemented after the Fremont Weeks’ case was new and it forever altered the enforcement activities of federal officers (Schmalleger, Frank, p.119). Additionally, the Weeks case also established an exception to the exclusionary rule known as the Silver Platter Doctrine. The Silver Platter Doctrine pertains to circumstances when the law enforcement receives evidence on a silver …show more content…
County deputies entered Richard Rochin’s house without a search warrant and forced their way into Rochin’s room. Once the officers were in the room they took notice of two capsules sitting on the nightstand. Rochin swallowed both pills as soon as the officers asked him whom the pills belonged to. The deputy grabbed his neck and forced his fingers into Rochin’s mouth as an attempt to recover the capsules in which Rochin had swallowed. After numerous failed attempts, Rochin was taken to the hospital to have his stomach pumped. The test analysis for the two pills tested positive as morphine and consequently submitted as evidence. Rochin was charged and found guilty of unlawful possession of morphine, which is an offense of California Health and Safety. Rochin appealed his case on grounds that his fifth and fourteenth amendments were violated since the evidence was inadmissible. The Supreme Court overturned the decision concluding that illegally obtained evidence is inadmissible. Furthermore, the court also added that the officers used brutal force to obtain the evidence from Mr Rochin, a violation of due process. The Court did not make the exclusionary rule relevant in all states cases, but only in those cases of extremely serious police misconduct (Forst & Dempsey, 2011, p.183). I believe that there were different approaches the police could have taken to make

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    There have been many cases where private security officers searched someone and found illegal contraband which that person was later for being in possession of that contraband. State v. Keyser is a case where a cashier searched a box a customer was about to leave the store with and found $147.98 unpaid item inside. The security guard who was working in the store at that time escorted the defendant in the back. The security officer calls the cops and the defendant was arrested and later charged with theft by deception. The defendant tried to suppress evidence of the item he was intending to steal.…

    • 539 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Hypothetically speaking, An officer creates a search warrant for evidence related to, a financial scheme. He seeks authorization to search the suspect 's home and any evidence which would connect the suspect to the scheme. The officers walk into the home, and search every inch of the house, and find bundles of cocaine in the bathtub. The law enforcement agent seizes the drugs because they are now in plain view of his search. He was searching for paperwork in relation to a financial scheme the officer now arrest the book the suspect for possession of an illegal substance, with intent to sell, which is a completely unrelated crime.…

    • 771 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    On the contrary, Sargent discovered the warrant had been rejected (Stringer, 1996). Supreme Court decided to eliminate the evidence. Exclusionary rules do not apply because of error in police record. Inevitable discovery refers to evidence would have been found without illegal act. For example, Nix v. Williams’s case showed law enforments ' massive search would have found Pamela Powers 's body without Willam 's statement.…

    • 1091 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Great Essays

    Therefore, the evidence obtained should be excluded. The final issue was regarding the police filing a late and incomplete report to the court for the warrant. The court did not tackle this issue as it became controversial due to its decision to exclude the evidence obtained. The Supreme court upheld the appeal, set aside the conviction and acquitted the accused (R. v. Paterson,…

    • 1023 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Nonetheless, the trial court rejected that request based the reasonable cause the officers had to search him. Falling on Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) the state felt that due to Mr. Dickerson’s demeanor was enough for reason to perform a search. While performing the search the officers discovered a cellophane bag of cocaine. The respondent was charged and found guilty; however, the guilty verdict was appealed. Thus, the…

    • 494 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Later, the officers returned showing Ms. Mapp a piece of paper and broke down her door. Ms. Mapp asked to be able to read the warrant and took it from the officers and hiding it in her dress. The officers struggled with Ms. Mapp to get the warrant back and they succeeded. The officers then arrested Ms. Mapp for being belligerent. In the search of Ms. Mapp’s house the officer did not find the bombing suspect but they did find some pornographic material that was hidden in a suitcase under Ms. Mapp’s bed.…

    • 1372 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Once inside they found more narcotics and Mr. Greenwood was arrested again. The trial court, in this case the Superior Court, dismissed, or dropped, the charges against Mr. Greenwood stating that the warrantless searches of Mr. Greenwood's trash violated the protection from unreasonable search and seizure in the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution. The government then appealed to the Court of Appeals and the California Supreme Court, both courts denied the government's claims and the case was finally appealed the United States Supreme Court.…

    • 561 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Exclusionary Rule

    • 758 Words
    • 4 Pages

    United States, 232 U.S. 383 (1914) (criminal.findlaw.com .d.). This case came before the Supreme Court because Weeks involved an appeal of a defendant who had been convicted based on evidence that had been seized by a federal agent without a warrant or any other constitutional justifications (criminal.findlaw.com .d.). Therefore, the Supreme Court changed the conviction of the defendant and then created what is now known as the “exclusionary rule.” Furthermore, it was created to deter police officers from any misconduct and it allows courts to exclude incriminating evidence from being used in a trial if there is no proof that it was obtain properly and according to constitutional provisions. Therefore, it allows a defendant to be able to challenge the admissibility of any evidence by bringing a pre-trial motion in order to suppress the evidence (criminal.findlaw.com…

    • 758 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    At this point, a pretrial motion to dismiss without prejudice is fair due to the misconduct of police and the violation of the client 's Fourth Amendment Rights. "In other areas of constitutional law and criminal procedure, the Court now routinely engages in textual interpretation informed by history, yet the debate over the exclusionary rule still seems to lack any foothold in conventional constitutional interpretation" (Re, pg. 5). There should be no interpretation whether or not the client 's rights were violated due to the facts in the case that the police blatantly without regard to the U.S. Constitution and showed true police…

    • 1291 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Great Essays

    Hendrickson et al case defines another major problem in the American legal court system, which demand that Kingsley had to provide a subjective motive of malicious intent by the police officers to use brutal force against in while in custody. In fact, the Judge informed the jury that that Kingsley had already lost the case, unless he could provide evidence of a direct act of malicious intent by the police officers. The video obtained of Kingsley’s allegations of objective police brutality was ignored by the jury, yet the Supreme Court eventually argued in favor of Kingsley’s defense under Bell v. Wolfish that the physical aspects of police maltreatment will be a much more prominent part of future allegations against police brutality of suspects in custody. I agreed with this outcome because the basis of American law is “innocence until proven guilty”, yet Kingsley was being found guilty of non-cooperation with the police as a preordained legal premise that validated the harsh measures taken by the police in this case. In this manner, I did not agree with the outcome of Kingsley’s trial that disproved the police brutality charge, but I did find the Supreme Court decision of the “objective standard” that would provide a new legal precedent in order to evaluate the level of violence that the police use against suspects in holding…

    • 1354 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Great Essays