Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. _____ (2011) Facts: A number of police officers set up a sting in which

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.

The exclusionary rule is a highly contentious issue in the American judicial system. For those of you who may be unfamiliar with the exclusionary rule, the exclusionary rule is the rule that states that illegally obtained evidence may not be used in a trial, even if it may have led to a defendant's conviction.

The Exclusionary Rule is defined as using evidence gathered which is in violation of the Constitution. Usually evidence is gathered illegally through seizure and which violates the Fourth Amendment. One of the key cases for this would be the Mapp V Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 1961 (Law, "Exclusionary Rule"). This case is landmark case for the exclusionary rule being used. Moreover, as for evidence being excluded from a trial I think that there are necessary measures as to what should be used and what shouldn’t be used in a case. If we determine good faith effort on the officer’s end we would be able to have the evidence obtained legally and have it be used as evidence and not have it dismissed. It is said that once any evidence is obtained during an

Whether a law enforcement officer was justified in acting in the absence of a warrant depends on the “totality of circumstances.” The United States Supreme Court uses a “careful case-by-case” approach to determine whether circumstances rose to the required level of exigency. Recognized exigent circumstances that justify warrantless entry may include, but are not limited to: entering to provide emergency aid to someone inside, pursuant to an immediate threat to officer safety, in “‘hot pursuit’ of a fleeing suspect,” “to put out a fire and investigate its cause,” and to prevent the imminent destruction of evidence of a serious crime. While circumstances that present the requisite exigency to justify a warrantless search differ, “in each

The Exclusionary rule, as defined in our Criminal Justice Book: 7e, is the principle that illegally obtained evidence must be excluded from trial. If any evidence, that falls within the field of the exclusionary rule, is found that would otherwise not have been found by law enforcements, the rule applies to linked evidence found and all the evidence after. This after evidence is often referred as “fruit of the poisonous tree.” The exclusionary rule is also looked at in a way to block law enforcement officers from handling searches and/or seizures, a violation of the fourth amendment, possibly aiding to defendants whose rights have been violated.

The Fourth Amendment is one of the most important constitutional protections; however, several procedural issues may arise. As seen in this case, the validity of the search warrant was questioned as well as the extent of the protection afforded. A search may be illegal even if a search warrant was issued; probable cause is

The Supreme Court consolidated two cases where the police gained entry into the defendants’ home without a search warrant and seized evidence found in the house. The rule of law as read out under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment posits that the United States Constitution has prohibited warrantless entry and search of a premise, absent the exigent circumstances, regardless the existence of a probable cause. The courts in Payton held that the Fourth Amendment made it a violation to enter a premise during an arrest absent an arrest warrant and exigent circumstances; a person’s house is a critical point to which the constitutional safeguards should be respected.

seized illegally and the exclusionary rule applied. As such the items seized may not be presented

The California Court of Appeal found the warrantless search was justified by Rojas’s written and verbal consent. The court agreed with the majority of the federal circuits, in that, this case was “indispensable to the decision in Randolph.” The decision was ultimately concluded that a tenant’s objection has no force if he or she is not physically present. Therefore held, the warrantless search was lawful because Rojas; a co-tenant, consented. Fernandez was denied review in the California Court of Appeal, however certiorari was granted.

All Americans are entitled to their rights. The Fourth Amendment states that we the people have to deny search and seizures from law enforcement without a warrant. The fourth amendment generally prohibits police from entering a home without a warrant unless the circumstances fit an established exception to the warrant requirement. According to the book The Constitution: Our Written Legacy by Joseph A. Melusky, the Fourth Amendment gives the right of the people to be secure in their person, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. Although we are entitled to these rights, police sometimes use and abuse their authority. In many cases, the Fourth Amendment has helped prove the innocence of one’s actions.

Search and seizure has recently been a communal debated issue for most of society. The controversy is split, one stance is for public safety and the other is for privacy. The Fourth Amendment, unreasonable search and seizure, was adopted into The Constitution of the United States to tackle “writ of assistance”, a general search warrant used during British rule. Unlike the general search warrants used during British rule, search and seizure have many guidelines and court precedents preventing law enforcement from randomly going through someone’s property. Like any rule, you will always have rule breakers; if the evidence is illegally seized, then that falls under the exclusionary rule.

It was therefore their contention that exigent circumstances should be a standardized requirement for warrantless searches, and that this requirement would strike a more appropriately balance in the tug-of-war between constitutionally protected privacy rights and enforcement rights to conduct investigations efficiently. The dissenting opinion found no exigent circumstances in the Fearon case in that 1) there was no reasonable basis to believe the cell phone held information that would prevent an imminent risk to safety and 2) there was no reasonable belief that the warrantless search would lead prevent an imminent loss of evidence (Fearon citation). Noting the lack of exigent circumstances in Fearon’s case, the dissenting opinion found that the search had been unlawful and in violation of Fearon’s s. 8

QUESTION 6 (6 points): Explain the Exclusionary Rule: How and why was it created? What was its development? When and how does a defendant invoke it? Exclusionary rule is in place to protect anyone that has been the victim unreasonable search and seizure. The exclusionary rule states that any evidence collected or obtain during an unreasonable search and seizure can not be used against a defendant in order to convict said defendant. The exclusionary rule took affect in federal case only in 1914 in the case of Weeks v. United States but there was one main clause; if evidence was collected illegally by state and local officer’s and then handed over to federal officer’s can be used. This clause is known as the silver platter doctrine. It wasn’t

Good Faith is the last exception. In this case, the magistrate issues a seizure warrant for acquiring evidence. However, this may not be in sync with the role of the exclusionary rule in deterring the police from any misconduct and also the evidence suppression may not occur. The limitation of this exception is that, if the defense can convince the judge that the officer was reckless in seizing the evidence, then the good faith will be nullified.

There are many valid existing exceptions to the exclusionary rule. For example, if evidence would be inevitably discovered, even if the evidence was initially seized illegally, it may still be admitted. However, this might be difficult to argue as a defense regarding hidden computer files, depending upon the circumstances. Evidence can also be included if it "is obtained from a source independent of the illegality. For example, two searches are conducted and produce the same evidence. One of the searches is illegal; the other is not. The evidence from the second search is admissible" (Exclusionary rule, 2011, O'Connor Law Firm). Also, if the evidence is offered by the defendant's free will or if there is a technical problem with a warrant but the officer acts in good faith, the evidence may still be submitted in a court of law (Exclusionary rule, 2011, O'Connor Law Firm).