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
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