Constitutional Policing Constitutional Policing When an officer of the law violates the law in which it enforces it creates mayhem and they lose the trust of the people. By obeying the laws just like the rest of the United States, they gain the social legitimacy that is needed in communities. Weeks Vs. United States Weeks. Vs. The United States was the case where Fremont Weeks filed suit against the United States for illegally entering his home and seizing papers that were used in his conviction of transporting lottery tickets through the mail.
While at work one day the police went to his home, found the key to his home, and entered. After searching his room for evidence the police left with articles and papers that were then turned over to the U. S. Marshal’s. Later the Marshal as well as the police came back to his home and were let in by someone else. They left with additional evidence and neither of them had any type of search warrant.
(www. casebriefs. om) The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution states: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable search 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 seized. ” The main issue in this case was whether or not Weeks’ Fourth Amendment rights were violated. The biggest thing about this case was the creation of the “exclusionary rule”.
That means that the evidence that was collected and obtained was in violation of the Fourth Amendment and is now inadmissible in trial. Mr. Weeks’ house was entered while he was not there and there was not a warrant. Anything that the Marshal’s or police found there cannot be used to incriminate him. The Court claimed that without the exclusionary rule, “the protection of the Fourth Amendment… is of no value”.? The important thing to know about this case is that it implied to federal cases only. Boyd vs. The United States was used as a precursor to this case. Boyd vs.
The United States was the first case that began the development to right to privacy protection. It paved the way for protection against unreasonable seizures and searches and protection against forced self-incrimination. Silverthorne Lumber Co. vs. United States Silverthorne Lumber Co. vs. United States was a case in which Silverthorne attempted to avoid paying taxes. His tax books were illegally seized by the Feds and illegal copies of the records were created. In this case, the issue was whether of not the copies that were obtained illegally permissable to use in court.
The judge ruled that it was not legal to use the records because it would set the presidence for police to circumvent the Fourth Amendment. This case is know as the case that created the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree doctrine which is an extention of the exclusionary rule that was formed in the Weeks vs. The United States case. Mapp vs. Ohio Mapp vs. Ohio is the landmark case in which the Supreme Court decided that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment, which protects against “unreasonable searches and seizures” may not be used in the statle law criminal prosecutions.
Police officers in Cleveland, Ohio received tainted information regarding a bombing and illegal betting equipment in the home of Dollree Mapp. Officers went to his home and tried to enter. When Mapp asked for a search warrant a all but one officer went back to get one. When the officers came back they broke down the door and presented a piece of paper they claimed to be a search warrant. The police did not find anything that they thought would be there to support their claim. There was an arrest made because they found child pornography, and was prosecuted and tried. There was no warrant at the trial. The U. S.
Supreme Court decided that the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, had been violated. This is important because previously this was only the rule in Federal Court and not State Courts. This is now known as selective incorporation. All of these cases are significant because it helped create and refine the Fourth Amendment to our constitution. Weeks vs. U. S. gave us the exlcusionary rule. Silverthorne Lumber vs. U. S. gave us the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree doctrine which is an extension of the exclusionary rule. Mapp vs. Ohio gave us the rule that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth
Amendment, which protects against “unreasonable searches and seizures” may not be used in the statle law criminal prosecutions. All of the were landmark cases that helped form the Fourth Amendment as it is today. References http://www. casebriefs. com/blog/law/criminal-procedure/criminal-procedure-keyed-to-saltzburg/searches-and-seizures-of-persons-and-things/mapp-v-ohio-3/ http://library. thinkquest. org/2760/weeks. htm http://www. phschool. com/atschool/ss_web_codes/supreme_court_cases/weeks. html http://scholar. google. com/scholar_case? case=1946214737793111775&q=Silverthorne%20Lumber%20&hl=en&as_sdt=2,15&as_vis=1 |
Cite this Law Enforcement and Constitutional Policing
Law Enforcement and Constitutional Policing. (2016, Oct 27). Retrieved from https://graduateway.com/law-enforcement/