How Did the Current Criminal Justice System in the US Evolve?

The Fourth Amendment protects citizens from unreasonable search and seizures. (People v. Williams 20 Cal.4th 125.) A defendant may move to suppress as evidence any tangible or intangible thing obtained as a result of an unreasonable search and seizure without a warrant. (Penal Code §1538.5(a)(1)(A).) Warrantless searches and seizures are presumptively unreasonable. (Williams, supra, 20 Cal.4th 119; see also Minnesota v. Dickerson (1993) 508 U.S. 366 (stating searches and seizures conducted outside the judicial process are per se unreasonable unless subject to an established exception).) While the defendant has the initial burden of raising the warrantless search issue before the court, this burden is satisfied when the defendant asserts the absence of a warrant and makes a prima facie case in support. (Williams, supra, 20 Cal.4th 130.) Accordingly, when the prosecution seeks to introduce evidence seized during a warrantless search, they also bear the burden in showing that an exception to the warrant applies. (Mincey v. Arizona (1978) 98 S.Ct. 2408; see also People v. James (1977) 19 Cal.3d 99.) Evidence obtained as a result of an unlawful search and seizure is considered “fruit of the poisonous tree” and should be suppressed. (Wong Sun v. United States (1963) 371 U.S. 471; see also Minnesota v. Dickerson (1993) 508 U.S. 372 (stating unreasonable searches are invalid under Terry and should be suppressed).)

Courts are established social, political, and judicial institutions necessary for the manifestation of justice and the maintenance of law and order. The courts are part of the judicial branch of government, as outlined in Article III of the United States Constitution. Courts are the arenas in which the law is tried and applied. Judges are the presiding officers of the court. The United States Supreme Court is the most fundamental court because has "the authority to decide the constitutionality of federal laws and resolve other disputes over them," (United States Courts, 2012). This is true even though even though the court does not expressly enforce that law; enforcement is the province of the executive branch.

The Constitution of The United States of America was created “in Order to form a more perfect Union.” Our rights, as citizens, are protected by the first ten amendments also known as the Bill of Rights. These amendments were established due to the strong objections of the British rule on the original colonies. Particularly speaking, the fourth amendment has protected our rights from unlawful search and seizures. With the implementation of “Probable Cause” and the vagueness of the Bill of Rights, the rules have been stretched and some say violated.We the people, need to develop the fine line between Probable cause and an unlawful search.

The Fourth Amendment is the basis for several cherished rights in the United States, and the right to the freedom of unreasonable searches and seizures is among them. Therefore, it would seem illegitimate- even anti-American for any law enforcement agent to search and seize evidence unlawfully or for any court to charge the defendant with a guilty verdict established on illegally attained evidence. One can only imagine how many people would have been sitting in our jails and prisons were it not for the introduction of the exclusionary rule.

One controversial aspect of the Fourth Amendment is of how courts should seize evidence obtained illegally. The rights guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment in the Bill of Rights states that “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.” However, it does not explain clearly what an unreasonable search or seizure is and in what cases a police officer should take caution when searching or seizing a suspect. As cases arose in which defendants brought these questions into court, the Supreme Court decided it would need to establish rules which the federal government would implement so that the government doesn’t abuse/overlook the people’s

America was founded on the principles of establishing and protecting liberty, which is described by The Declaration of Independence. The Constitution of the United States was written to provide a unified and functioning government and also to protect individual rights. The colonists disagreed with the workings of the British government and decided to become an independent state. Once the Constitution was put in place, “the First Congress of the United States proposed 12 amendments to the Constitution.” The

Daniel Hoover Professor Jack Citron/ Joseph Warren Political Science 1 September 22nd, 2015 The Constitution is not a Democratic Document The U.S. Constitution revolutionized the American political system, and shaped world history by inspiring other states to imitate its protection of civil liberties in the later adopted Bill of Rights, checks and balances between branches within the federal government, and guarantees to state governments. For the purpose of this paper, it is essential to analyze the Constitution in its early form because it established the conditions from which our federal republic has evolved. In addition, the Constitution of December 15th, 1791, the date when the promised Bill of Rights was added, best reflects the intentions

To begin with, the Fourth Amendment was constituted to protect the people from unreasonable searches and seizures. However, there are times and cases in which an investigation is started and evidence is collected illegally. There are doctrines such as The Exclusionary Rule and Fruit of the Poisonous Tree in place to eliminate any evidence to be used in court if obtained illegally. This paper will differentiate the two doctrines as well explain how and why the two could possibly be incorporated in the case of “Who did it.” We will also look into the immunity that government officials may have pertaining to civil liability and see if officers affiliated with the “Who did It” case are protected from their actions.

The Fourth Amendment is a persons right to privacy and protects them from an unlawful search and seizure. When an officer conducts an unlawful search and illegally collects evidence, the officer might try to present the evidence in the suspects trial.As a result of unreasonable search and seizure, the exclusionary rule was created. The exclusionary rule states that any criminal evidence collected by law enforcement officials in violation of a persons fourth amendments rights is inadmissible in court (Schmalleger, 128). However, the exclusionary rule was established to ensure that police officers abide by the rules and obtain warrants that permit them to effectively conduct a search and arrests, especially if the arrest made may lead to the

According to (Maclin, 2012), to achieve the credibility of the rights enlisted in the United States Constitution, there should be an enforceable rule imposed on the authorities/government for violations of the listed rights. Following the Weeks Vs U.S, the court deemed it necessary to have a rule that safeguards unreasonable searches and seizures. Evidence gathered from unlawful searches and seizures were in violation of the 4th amendment and therefore should not be admitted in a court of law. In its decision, the Week's court went forth to state that a court may not ratify illegal government action through the admission of evidence, regarded as the fruits of the poisonous tree. Initially, the exclusionary rule was inapplicable to states but

The exclusionary rule prevents the government from using most evidence gathered illegally this comes into play when evidence is obtained in violation of a suspect’s Fourth Amendment rights against unlawful search and seizure. The rule may also be triggered by police violations of the Fifth or Sixth Amendment. Additionally, the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine holds that

America 's Criminal Justice system started during colonial America, with the early colonists coming from England, France, and the Dutch Republic. Our original morals for our law system were pulled from the English Common Law System. The English common law system was a set of rules to solve issues that arose within society. Common law is a strategy that focuses on past

The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States guarantees the right of the people "to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." ("Fourth Amendment") In order to avoid an illegal search or seizure, the police must first obtain a search warrant "upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." ("Fourth Amendment") Despite these fundamental principles, the courts have been forced to recognize that there are times when a search or seizure is appropriate without a warrant.

Search and seizure Supreme Court cases, such as Terry v. Ohio and Mapp v. Ohio, allowed individuals to protect their rights of law enforcement officers from searching into property without a warrant. A search and seizure must be conducted correctly exactly how the 4th Amendment is presented. On the other hand, it is very important for the law enforcement to intrude and stop a potential threat to harm society. For instance, it is different if a treacherous terrorist was hiding in a neighborhood with armed weapons. However, national security takes it granted with citizen’s rights without a probable cause or to stop and frisk. Some law enforcement officers assume and overpower citizens without thinking about their rights. The National security,

Every year the miscarriage of justice becomes an increasing problem in the United States, due to disquieting issues and crevices within the criminal justice system. Individuals such as William Dillon, have served protracted sentences for deplorable crimes which they did not commit. Over time, innocence group projects’ have exposed wrongful convictions through new advances in forensic science and reforms in the system. Among these advances, contains the evolution of DNA testing and the competence to apply the biology of the body’s cells to resolve crimes. This has produced meaningful changes in the criminal justice field, giving hope that freedom may be near for the wrongly convicted. Still, the battle has yet to be won for many innocent victims