This paper examines the significance of the 4th Amendment in a homicide case involving Mary Ellis, her son William Ellis, and their neighbor Clyde Williams. It analyzes relevant court cases to comprehend the prerequisites for police to acquire a warrant and the particular situations that permit law enforcement to enter a residential home. The paper also delves into the interpretation of the exclusionary rule and the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine. Ultimately, it scrutinizes the aforementioned scenario concerning Mary Ellis and her son William.
The discussion will focus on the story of Mary and William, specifically exploring the application of their 4th amendment rights and the exclusionary rule of evidence. Additionally, various cases related to the exclusionary rule and the fruit of poisonous tree will be examined. The incident took place on Saturday morning when Mary Ellis, a widow living with her adult son William Ellis, discovered her neighbor Clyde Stevens lying unresponsive on the floor of her walk-in closet. Mrs. Ellis immediately contacted 911, and upon their arrival, it was determined that Mr. Stevens had died from a stab wound caused by a large butcher knife protruding from his back.
Ellis was hospitalized for distress and observation. The U.S. Constitution’s Fourth Amendment protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures, ensuring their security in their persons, houses, papers, and effects. According to FindLaw (2014), a warrant is required for a search, which should be based on probable cause supported by oath or affirmation and should clearly specify the location and items or individuals to be seized. Despite this requirement, law enforcement can illegally search someone’s home without a warrant, violating the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against such actions.
In specific circumstances, adult permission and presence can negate the need for a search warrant. This exemption also applies when an arrest takes place at a resident’s home following a police call. Furthermore, if an officer is inside someone’s home and the items in question are readily visible, obtaining a search warrant becomes unnecessary. A search warrant is an official decree from a judge that grants law enforcement authority to search designated locations or items at a predetermined time. In these situations, the officer only needs to demonstrate probable cause – sufficient evidence or facts that substantiate reasonable belief.
Even if it is something as minor as detecting the smell of drugs, it is sufficient for a person to believe that a suspect may have committed a crime. In the case of Mary and William Ellis, their rights protected under the 4th Amendment have not been violated. Mary called 911 and gave permission for both paramedics and police officers to enter their home. Upon entering, they found evidence of a murder – a butcher knife intentionally positioned on Mr. Stevens’ back in clear view. Law enforcement promptly identified that a crime had occurred.
Ellis’s adult son William was not present at the house when they arrived, which may fall under the category of exigent circumstances. Exigent circumstances are relevant when there is a threat to a person’s life or safety, an imminent escape by a suspect, or the potential removal or destruction of evidence. If law enforcement officers violate someone’s 4th Amendment rights, as seen in the case of Weeks v. United States (1914), any seized evidence becomes inadmissible. Weeks was not at home when law enforcement arrived, and neighbors informed them about the location of an extra key to the house.
Once the officers gained entry, they unlawfully searched and confiscated multiple items. At this stage, law enforcement has the lawful authority to enter the Ellis residence because the entire house is now designated as a crime scene. The victim’s body was discovered in Mary’s room, while blood evidence was found in William’s room, thereby encompassing the entire home within the crime scene. Crime scene investigators are actively examining the area and have discovered William’s fingerprints stained with blood near a light switch in his room. Furthermore, DNA analysis confirms that the blood belongs to the victim, Clyde Stevens.
In order to ensure proper securing and gathering of evidence, law enforcement must limit the number of people entering and leaving the residence. Failing to follow proper protocol and search the home would lead to any blood evidence found in William’s room being considered unacceptable in court. The case of Mincey v. Arizona exemplifies this point as a group of plainclothes officers, including a narcotics officer, forcefully entered Mincey’s home resulting in an officer’s death and injuries to Mincey himself. Despite Mincey being unconscious in the hospital, his apartment underwent a four-day search.
During Mincey’s hospitalization, his 4th Amendment rights were violated as officers ignored his attorney request while questioning him. Additionally, they breached his rights by searching his apartment instead of prioritizing the search for additional victims after a shootout occurred. When unlawfully obtained, evidence is subject to the exclusionary rule, which prohibits law enforcement from utilizing such evidence that infringes upon an individual’s rights.
The exclusionary rule, also known as the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine, applies to all individuals in the United States regardless of their citizenship or visiting status. It states that any evidence obtained illegally cannot be used in court. However, if the evidence was obtained separately from the illegal activity, it can be used in a trial. The Nardone v. United States case is a notable example of both the exclusionary rule and the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine. In this case, law enforcement officials unlawfully tapped Frank Nardone’s phone and intercepted messages related to alcohol smuggling and concealment.
Despite law enforcement acting upon the information received to apprehend individuals and gather evidence, it is important to note that the initial wiretapping was conducted unlawfully. As a result, any evidence obtained through this illegal means cannot be admitted in court. The exclusionary rule and the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine are vital because they serve as the only effective methods for the judiciary system to protect the legitimacy of its authority when issuing warrants.
This rule can act as a deterrent for law enforcement, reminding them to be cautious and follow protocols during searches and evidence handling. It will also show the public that everyone must abide by the law. These regulations have a specific purpose – without them, society would become chaotic. Moreover, this rule can help train officers better and make them more prepared since the potential of evidence dismissal creates an urgency for training.
In my opinion, I do not believe that the exclusionary rule and fruit of poisonous fruit apply to the case of Mary and William Ellis. All evidence collected during the search should be considered admissible because it was conducted after Mary Ellis contacted 911 upon discovering Mr. Clyde Stevens’ body in her walk-in closet. Additionally, Mary’s adult son William was absent when law enforcement arrived, and the protruding butcher knife in Mr. Steven’s back provided law enforcement with probable cause. It is crucial to note that once an officer has probable cause, a warrant is unnecessary.
To ensure a positive outcome, I would have made certain changes if I had read the story of Mary and William Ellis. Firstly, upon arriving at the scene, I would have taken Ms. Ellis to a separate room in order to gather information. During this conversation, I would inquire about who was present in the home and when she last saw or spoke to Clyde Stevens. Additionally, I would ask about the last time she had contact with her son William and whether he was taking any medications or if there had been any issues between William, Clyde, and Mary.
I would politely ask Ellis if she has any objections to me thoroughly inspecting the area. Once I determine the crime scene, it is important to seal and secure it. Additionally, I will assign an officer to guard the entrance of the residence and only allow authorized personnel access. It is also necessary for me to inform law enforcement authorities so they can properly collect and store all physical evidence. I strongly believe that if my search adheres to legal standards, any information obtained will be admissible in court. Moreover, I will carefully tag and store any evidence to avoid mistakes.
The Legal Information Institute, Cornell University Law School provides legal information. The information can be found at the following URLs:
– http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/exclusionary_rule
– http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment
– http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/232/383/case.html
– http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/437/385
These URLs are accessed on various dates.
Legal Information Institute, Cornell University Law School (n. d). Retrieved on January 14, 2014 from http://www. law. cornell. edu/wex/fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree
Montrey, N. (2008). Yahoo voices, What is the Exclusionary Rule and Why is it Important? Retrieved on January 14, 2014 from http://voices. yahoo. com/what-exclusionary-rule-why-important-1797693.html
Leagle, (2013) Retrieved on January 14, 2014 from http://leagle. com/decision/1939147106F2d41_1138. xml/UNITED%20STATES%20v.%20NARDONE
FindLaw, For Legal Professionals. (2014). Retrieved on January 14, 2014 from http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment4/amendment.html
