Exigent Circumstances

In the case of Wong Sun v United States, in consideration of the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine the Court excluded the admission of evidence in the trial court due to the violation of defendant’s Fourth Amendment Rights when the derivative evidence was obtained. Therefore, in this essay, I am going to discuss if the exclusion of evidence contributes in an important way of supporting the guarantees of the Fourth Amendment or should the derivative evidence be admitted because police officers could not have anticipated the discovery of derivative evidence.

The Court of Appeals reversed and filed a petition for certiorari. The Supreme Court held that: "(1) apprehension by use of deadly force is a seizure subject to the Fourth Amendment's reasonableness requirement; (2) deadly force may not be used unless it is necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a

Search and seizure is a vital and controversial part of criminal justice, from the streets to the police station to court. It is guided by the Fourth Amendment, which states that people have the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure of their bodies, homes, papers, and possessions and that warrants describing what and where will be searched and/or seized are required to be able to search the above things (“Fourth Amendment,” n.d.). Interpretations of the Fourth Amendment by the U.S. Supreme Court and the establishment of case law by many state and federal courts have expanded upon the circumstances under which search and seizure is legal. Several doctrines and exceptions have also emerged from the Supreme Court and other case law that guide law enforcement officers on the job and aid lawyers in court.

This case is important to anyone working in law enforcement because of the objective reasonableness standard that it established via the fourteenth amendment of the U.S. Constitution. This case also reversed a four-factor test regarding use of force that was used to test if the force was applied in a good faith effort to maintain discipline or was applied with malice to cause harm. The Supreme Court in 490 U.S. 396 (1986) determined that the four factor test did not cover all possible situations and only the decision making skills of a human being can adequately determine the appropriate use of force.

4. Evidence illegally obtained by the police in violation of the Fourth Amendment will be excluded from trial whether or not the police acted in good faith?

At final, the Supreme Court vacated and remanded the lower court’s ruling. The Court said that all claims that law enforcement officials have used excessive force whether deadly or not in the course of an arrest, investigatory stop or any other seizure of a citizen are properly analyzed under the Fourth Amendment’s objective reasonableness standard, rather than the under a substantive due process. The court also stated that a seizure occurs when a law enforcment officer terminates a free citizen’s movement by a means interntionally applied. An officer may sieze a person in many ways including: traffic stops, investigative detentions, and arrests are all seizures under the 4th amendmet. To seize a person, an officer may yell, “stop”, handcuff, a baton, or a firearm can be used to comply the subject with officer orders.

Thirty-five years later after Weeks’ case, the Supreme Court in Wolf v. Colorado (1949) held that the 4th Amendment protection applies to searches by state officials and federal agents. However, the exclusionary rule generated in Weeks’ case did not apply to the states. The appellant, Julius A. Wolf, was convicted of treachery to commit abortions in Colorado and police officers had attained evidence used against him without a warrant or consent. State judges were not required to disregard evidence obtained in desecration of the 4th Amendment in states’ criminal prosecutions. In this case, the Supreme Court applied the 4th Amendment to the states through the 14th Amendment Due Process Clause. Wolf’s verdict was upheld (Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25, 1949). The Supreme Court left the states to enforce the 4th Amendment protection. It resulted in the abused power and the court had to intervene (Holten &Lamar, 1991).

A case challenging a statute as violating a person's rights under the U. S. Constitution.

Exigent (emergency) situations: Exigent circumstances can exist when the officer believes one or both of the requirements are present:

The Fourth Amendment shields people from outlandish inquiries and seizures including captures. Under most conditions, it requires that a judge issue a court order approving law officers to hunt down and seize confirmation of criminal movement, yet the warrant can be issued just when there is reasonable justification. In 1914, the Preeminent Court embraced the exclusionary principle, which banned proof seized unlawfully from being utilized as a part of a criminal trial; in 1961, the standard was made pertinent to the states. Resulting Incomparable Court choices have contracted the use of the exclusionary principle.

The Good faith exception issued by the Supreme Court of the United States v. Leon recognized evidence that has been collected in violation of the privacy right protected by the Fourth Amendment to be used in a trial in case the police acted in good faith as answered on detective search warrant (Hall, 2014). During Leon case, the judge issued a warrant which was facially deficient, but without officer recognizing the language as long as there is reasonable reliance on that warrant police officials believe they could execute. (McDonald, 1986) The Court held illegally seized evidence may be used in federal and civil trials to impeach statements made by a defendant who lacks standing on the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court uses the term good faith when referring to the objective reasonableness of the police in the belief of the existence of a warrant that is non-existent benefits. The Court concluded that evidence should not be suppressed where it is discovered by officers in the course of actions that are taken in good faith and reasonable belief that they are authorized. (McDonald, 1986)

The Supreme Court has implemented a three-part test when evaluating the requisite Article III standing. A plaintiff must show that (1) it has suffered an ‘injury in fact’ that is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; (2) the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant; and (3) it is likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision. Although all Circuits agree these three prongs must be satisfied, the Ninth, Seventh and Second Circuits have a more liberal standard of what constitutes a valid “injury-in-fact.”

Exigent circumstances is a term used when a law enforcement officer has a probable cause and does not have sufficient time to secure a warrant, such as when evidence is likely to be destroyed, or a suspect could escape. It is an exception to the Fourth Amendment, which protects from unlawful searches and seizures. This is the case of the target of a drug-trafficking organization and suspect of the murder of a Melissa Barratt, Frank Caraballo, who was tracked by Vermont police via his cell phone. The police had considered obtaining a warrant, but decided the process would take too much time. Instead they asked Caraballo’s cell phone provider, Sprint, to ping his cell phone to obtain his location in Springfield, Vermont. Mr. Caraballo was charged

When conducting possible searches and seizers, the Fourth Amendment is made to protect unreasonable conduct. Due to

State and local law enforcement agencies face several challenges including the lack of resources, expertise, training, and funding to solve cyber crime. Of these problems, are the growing concerns of the local and state officials about the threats made relating to the protection of computer infrastructures at the federal level. Local officers are not having the capacity or understanding of computer crimes necessary to properly investigate offenses such as computer and electric crimes and fraud and theft crimes by digital technology. (Taylor, 2011) Having education and appropriate training is crucial in the investigation process to gain an upper hand in fighting digital crime. In addition, state and local law enforcement expressed concerns about resource constraints and apprehension regarding expertise and jurisdictional