Toscanino Case Study

In the United State we have many systems, like all others, it is separated the use of some irrelevant or untrustworthy evidence. The system that I am referring to and the one that we will be discussing in this paper is the exclusionary rule. It is the introduction of a good evidence, that it is obtained by a bad law enforcement, is most common in the United State than other countries legal system. To put it in other words, the exclusionary rule is controversial. Therefore, many experts say that it sets criminals free on minor points. In this paper, I will speak about the pros and cons of the exclusionary rule, how it is effecting the criminal justice system of the United State. In addition, I will speak and summarize the case of Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole v. Scott from 1998, this will be a great example of the exclusionary rule and the effects about them. Furthermore, I will show how this case was important with the Exclusionary Rule, and my opinion on the matter.

As we have probably read in our previous discussion about the Warrant Court of the 60s and 70s, the “exclusionary rule” has become a highly contentious issue in our country’s judicial system. A quick summary for those unfamiliar with this rule, the exclusionary rule defends individuals from the states obtaining illegal evidence that may be used in trial, even if without a doubt the defendant is guilty.

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

The case involving Ex Parte Quirin involves an American citizen who returns to the US during World War II. His mission was to conduct sabotage and terrorist related activities inside the United States. In 1942, he was arrested and charged with providing support to the enemy. He appealed his decision to the US Supreme Court claiming that he was entitled to have his case heard in a civilian

After refusing to sign the paper, and being interrogated, he finally confessed. Miranda's lawyers claimed that Miranda was not informed on any of his rights. Rights he should have been aware of included his right to keep quiet and his right to an attorney. He was charged with rape and kidnapping, but wanted to go to a higher court. This is when he went to the Supreme Court. An investigation would take place to see if the arresting officer followed the right rules. The one who led court was Chief Justice Warren. In court, there was a 5-4 decision. Ernesto would no longer be convicted of his crime because his rights were not made aware to him. The judge stated that a person's rights must be said to them when they are arrested. Miranda should have been told of his fifth and sixth amendment rights. His confession was no longer valid, and he would get a new trial. Different evidence though, did confirm that he was the one responsible for the crime. He was sentenced to eleven years in prison. Even though he'd need to spend time in jail, his case changed both the world, and the procedures of police

Terminiello was found guilty in the lower court. He then appealed to the Illinois Supreme Court, where the conviction was maintained. After receiving the verdict from the Illinois Supreme Court, Terminiello appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

United States. The Supreme Court argued that the lower court misapplied the test for probable cause in which Justice Rehnquist argued that an informant's “veracity, reliability, and basis of knowledge are important in determining probable cause”. He argued that the "totality-of-the-circumstances" approach to probable cause was the correct one to glean from Spinelli, and that the law enforcement officials who acquired a warrant abided by it in this case.

As stated earlier, the exclusionary rule is where the people of the law confiscate evidence illegally from an individual’s personal property, including home, vehicle, and technological devices; meaning it will not hold proof in a criminal trial. The rule was created to stop people who “thought” they were above the law. The exclusionary rule came into play with Weeks vs. U.S. case.

The Federal District court denied this motion to suppress the block of methamphetamine and prosecuted Bond finding him guilty of conspiracy to possess and possession with intent to distribute. Moreover, Bond challenged the judgment made on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on grounds that the court should have granted his motion to suppress the evidence since it was a violation of his right under the Fourth Amendment and because as per the petitioner, Bond, the officer had manipulated the bag in a way that other passengers would not have. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit rejected his argument and affirmed the lower court’s

In the case of New Jersey v. T.L.O. a young girl, T.L.O., had her purse searched, suspected of having cigarettes in her purse. The school officials of Piscataway High School uncovered cigarettes, miniature quantity of marijuana, and a list for students who owe her money. T.L.O. was now imposed charge of possession of marijuana. T.L.O. was not content and moved to terminate evidence discovered in the search, but was however contradicted her motion. She was sentenced to probation for one year, after confirmed guilty from the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of New Jersey. The Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division proclaimed the contradiction of the process to terminate evidence. Holding that the exclusionary rule of the fourth amendment involves the search and seizures regulated by the school officials in public schools, the New Jersey Supreme Court interchanged.

However, Weeks v. United States (1914) officially establishes the federal exclusionary rule. By obtaining private materials from the defendant’s home through a warrantless arrest and search it led to weeks’ conviction. However, the Supreme Court ended a long practice of allowing illegally obtained evidence into the court room. Thus, when the evidence was dismissed Weeks’ conviction was dropped. Almost forty years later in the case Rochin v. California (1952), the exclusionary doctrine is more than unreasonable searches and seizure. It is that of which shocks the conscience. Which in this case the defendant was taken to the hospital after ingesting narcotic and then forcibly had them removed from his stomach with a tube (Wilson, 2016).

Although authorities could never bring him down for the murders they were able to catch him evading his income taxes. November 1931, Alphonse was found guilty on several counts of tax evasion and was sentenced to 11 years in the federal penitentiary and fined $50,000 dollars. Capone first served his sentence in the Atlanta penitentiary before being moved to Alcatraz. Scarface only served 8 years of his 11 year sentence, he was released after being deemed a syphilitic

The Exclusionary Rule has been around since the early 1900s, and it is a rule that some defendants who are involved in a felonious case tend to use as a remedy for unlawful searches that has a habit of violating their Fourth Amendment rights. This rule also dictates that any evidence that was unlawfully obtained should be ruled out as evidence under our Fourth Amendment, and the Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 is one of these cases that discusses this rule and evidences being excluded. Now, before this rule was created, “any evidence was admissible in a criminal trial if the judge found the evidence to be relevant, and how the evidence was seized was not considered an important issue” (“Exclusionary Rule”, n.d., para. 4).

In the trial, “State of New York V. New York” we found the defendant not guilty. There were many reasons why this was our verdict. Kris Weaver, a teacher at the school did not attend the training made to help teachers identify the symptoms of being high. Sandy Swanson, a guidance counselor at the identified the search as violation to the school locker policy. These reasons helped us classify the defendant not guilty.

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