Unit 3 Assignment: Pre-Trial Proceedings

Two of these barriers are lack of interoperability (the ability to exchange information) among computer systems and privacy issues. The Markle Foundation fosters collaboration in both private and public sectors through an initiative called Connecting to Health, which seeks to improve patient care by promoting standards for electronic medical information. In addition, the Markle Foundation has provided information and promoted meaningful use and the development of HIEs

Among the arguments in support of the exclusionary rule4 by its proponents are the following:

The acquisition of evidence for a trial is an important step both parties take. However, some methods used to obtain such evidence can be debatable. In order to protect both sides from exploitation, a set of rules are set in place. This rule is called the Exclusionary Rule.

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 exclusionary rule provides extra protections for defendants; however, certain circumstances exist allowing the introduction of gathered evidence that violates the defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights. These exceptions include good faith errors, independent sources, inevitable discovery, and the purged taint exception. The good faith exception allows the introduction of evidence collected by law enforcement that on review violates the defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights. A defective search warrant may taint the collected evidence; however, law enforcement officers acting under good faith a search warrant is valid may present the tainted evidence at trial because the initial error lies with the judge approving the probable cause for the warrant (Del Carmen, 2010). The independent source exception allows the introduction of evidence obtained via the direct result of an illegal search or seizure if the connection between the illegal police conduct and the seizure of the evidence dissipates the taint of illegality. If the police possess an independent source used to obtain entry on a search and discover contraband based on the source in an illegal manner, then the seizure of the evidence is admissible regardless of the illegal entry or search (Del Carmen, 2010). The inevitable discovery doctrine allows the introduction of evidence of a defendant’s guilt that is inadmissible under the exclusionary rule. The doctrine states

While the Exclusionary Rule sounds gratifying, assuring that evidence obtained illegally won’t be submitted it also seems to be flawed. Starting with the 2 exceptions of the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine: 1.) If the police had an independent source of knowledge of the evidence aside from the fruits of the illegal search, then the doctrine will not exclude the discovered evidence. 2.) If discovery of the evidence was "inevitable", the

Under Part 4 of Section 4 we are informed when assessing capacity we must ‘permit and encourage a person to participate or to improve his or her ability to participate as fully as possible in making an informed decision which affects his future’.

Dickerson, Timothy Dickerson was seen in a drug known area. An officer ordered a pat down to investigate. When searching for weapons, the officer felt a small lump in Dickerson’s pocket. Without further evidence, the officer reached into his pocket and found a bag of cocaine. The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously agreed that the cocaine in this case was inadmissible as evidence even though the Court held that officers were allowed to assume that an object was contraband through touch. It was stated that, “If a police officer lawfully pats down a suspect's outer clothing and feels an object whose contour or mass makes its identity immediately apparent, there has been no invasion of the suspect's privacy beyond that already authorized by the officer's search for weapons; if the object is contraband, its warrantless seizure would be justified by the same practical considerations that inhere in the plain-view

Fortunately Dollree Mapp was somewhat educated with the law and the procedures law enforcement needed to take in order to search her property. Even after the Supreme Court’s decision on this landmark case which paved the way for the Exclusionary Rule, law enforcement officers have struggled for years regarding the interpretation of this rule while conducting investigations. There have also been additional rules and guidelines that make a somewhat clearer understanding of how law enforcement officers conduct investigations, produce evidence, and obtain information. The chart below outlines procedures law enforcement officers use to ensure compliance.

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.

In criminal justice the exclusionary rule prohibits the use of illegally seized evidence or evidence that violates the offenders rights under the fourth, fifth, or sixth amendment. There are three exceptions under the exclusionary rule, “fruit of the poisoned tree”, inevitable discovery exception, and the good faith exception. These three exceptions each allow evidence that can be considered illegally obtained to be admissible in a court of law, given it fits in certain constraints. “Fruit of the poisoned tree” is a term for any verbal or physical evidence obtained by using illegally obtained evidence.

The marijuana and Alicia Keys’ statement should be suppressed because they are tainted evidence obtained from the unlawful search of Defendant’s home. Pursuant to the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine, any evidence, or statement derivative of any law enforcement’s unconstitutional activity must be suppressed in accordance to the exclusionary rule. Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963). The officers’ argument that the taint was purged fails because no exception to the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine is applicable here. The evidence was not obtained through an independent source. The evidence was only acquired as a result of the unlawful search of the Defendant’s home. Also, inevitable discovery does not apply here because absent the illegal search of the Defendant’s home, the officers would have never visited Alicia Keys’ home in relation to the Defendant. Similarly, Alicia Keys’ statement and the marijuana seized

Therefore, any evidence that is not related to the investigation should be inadmissible in

Prosecuting those who commit crimes is very important to the overall wellbeing of society and the citizens within society. Prosecuting and convicting criminals not only prevents them from committing another crime, it also serves as a deterrent to others that may be considering breaking the law. Many courts make up the judicial branch and these courts are responsible for applying laws made by the government. The courts are made up of courtroom workgroups that are the basis of the courts proceedings.

Thank you, your honor. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, my client, the emperor, was stripped of his pride. He was degraded in front of his empire. One afternoon in the town, my client was approached by a swindler who gave him an offer she knew he could not refuse. She offered to weave him the most beautiful outfit that could only be seen by people who were intelligent and fit for their positions. He then hired them, as anyone else would do, and paid her and gave her beautiful cloth that was never used for intended purpose . My client was concerned about where all the cloth was going. Lets remember one thing, one of my client’s biggest reasons for purchasing this swindler was because she could supposably weave fabric that only could be