Tommy Transmitter Case Summary

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 defendant moved to suppress the cocaine and inculpatory statements in District Court. Suppression was granted as a fruit of the poisonous tree under the exclusionary rule. The Court of Appeals upheld the motion with the claim that private security officers were 'state actors'. The Supreme Court upheld that the

The question brought up to the court resulting from this case was, was the evidence admitted at trial from Riley's cell phone discovered through a search that violated his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches? The Supreme Court ruled

In an 8-to-1 decision, the Court held that the search undertaken by the officer was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment and that the weapons seized could be introduced into evidence against Terry. The Court found that the officer acted on more than an “hunch” and that “a reasonably prudent

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.

“Ultimately, the Supreme Court held 6-3 that the school’s search of T.L.O.’s purse was constitutional.” (Lannacci 2016). This essay will briefly examine the up till today open question that can never really be given a definite answer until applied in each case- “the applicability of the exclusionary rule in juvenile delinquency or criminal proceedings when the evidence has been seized in a school, by a school official, in violation of the Fourth Amendment.” (Stoddard 2011).

The Exclusionary rule requires that any evidence taken into custody be obtained by police using methods that violates an individual constitutional rights must be excluded from use in a criminal prosecution against that individual. This rule is judicially imposed and arose relatively recently in the development of the U.S. legal system. Under the common law, the seizure of evidence by illegal means did not affect its admission in court. Any evidence, however obtained, was admitted as long as it satisfied other evidentiary criteria for admissibility, such as relevance and trustworthiness. The exclusionary rule was developed in 1914 and applied to the case of Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383, and was limited to a prohibition on the use

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?

Therefore, suppressed the self-incriminating statements in Williams following trial but under the independent source doctrine still admitted the fruit of the poisonous tree evidence such as the body’s location and conditions. The Supreme Court said that the evidence would’ve been discovered in a short period of without the police officer’s interrogation, didn’t infringe William’s Sixth Amendment rights and highlighted that the rule was already in standard practice by most state and federal courts. The Court also stated that the state didn’t have to prove “good faith” in order for evidence to be admissible and used Wong Suns court case as it’s backbone. William again was convicted of first degree murder.

The Exclusionary Rule is a law passed by the United States Supreme Court. It demands that “any evidence obtained by police using methods that violate a person’s constitutional rights be excluded

This case mainly deals with the interpretation of our Constitution’s Fourth Amendment, which protects us from unlawful search and seizures. What we can learn from this case are: the differences in court systems, the elements that comprise the Fourth Amendment, and the controversies surrounding it. The text relevant to this case can be found within the first six chapters of our textbook, with an emphasis on Chapter 6 “Criminal Law and Business”.

Her attorney argued that she should never have been brought to trial because the material evidence resulted from an illegal, warrant less search. Because the search was unlawful, he maintained that the evidence was illegally obtained and must also be excluded. In its ruling, the Supreme Court of Ohio recognized that ?a reasonable argument? could be made that the conviction should be reversed ?because the ?methods? employed to obtain the evidence?were such as to offend a sense of justice.? But the court also stated that the materials were admissible evidence. The Court explained its ruling by differentiating between evidence that was peacefully seized from an inanimate object, such as a trunk, rather than forcibly seized from an individual. Based on this decision, Mapp's appeal was denied and her conviction was upheld.

." The exclusionary rules evaluation does not allow the use of evidence at trial obtained through methods that violate the constitution. The exclusionary rules is a judicially created remedy, even though the Fourth Amendment requires search and seizure be reasonable, but the Fourth Amendment does not set fourth a remedy if search and seizure do not comply with that reasonableness requirement.

Furthermore, if evidence falls within the guidelines of the Exclusionary Rule and the law enforcement gained this additional evidence based off of the unreasonable search or seizure may be considered the “fruit of the poisonous tree.”[2]

A four-year-old girl is raped and murdered. Officers identify a suspect and make entry into his house illegally. Once inside, they find the murder weapon and DNA evidence linking the suspect to the crime. Under the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine in violation of the Fourth Amendment should the evidence be thrown out and