Wong Sun Case

The newly discovered evidence can't merely be “cumulative”, nor “such as would merely impeach the credibility of an adverse witness”. Cizler v. Cizler, 19 A.D.2d 819, 243 N.Y.S.2d 614 (1st Dept., 1963).

The United States Constitution affords all people certain rights. The Fifth Amendment states that we have the right against self incrimination. The Fourth Amendment protects us from unreasonable search or seizure. People have the right to confront witnesses and accusers. Nothing can change these rights unless the U.S. constitutions were to be rewritten and that is not likely to happen. In this paper we will be examining the Fourth Amendment, learning the requirements for obtaining a search warrant, defining probable cause, describing when search and seizure does not require a warrant. We will also explain the rationale for allowing warrantless searches, examine the persuasiveness of these reasons, and determine if probable cause is always

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?

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”.

In my paper to follow I intend to better educate and provide examples and different situations dealing with the Fourth Amendment in criminal procedures.

Following the establishment of the Fourth Amendment brought complication. The complications can best be described as “Fruits of the Poisonous Tree.”

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

The Fourth Amendment provides protection against illegal policing by, barring searches that are “unreasonable” and without the justification of “probable cause.” In relativity, once individuals’ rights have been violated and the evidence is obtained illegally, and trialed at court, The Exclusionary Rule can be applied to assist a Defendant in a criminal case as a remedy for illegal searches that violate the rights set forth in the Fourth Amendment. When applicable, the rule dictates that the evidence illegally obtained must be excluded as evidence under the Fourth Amendment. One important corollary to the Exclusionary Rule is the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine. This rule holds that, in addition to the material uncovered during the illegal search being in admissible, any evidence that is later gathered as an indirect result of the illegal search will also be excluded (Wong,1963).

The Fourth Amendment has two basic premises. One focuses on the reasonableness of a search and seizure, and the other on warrants. One view is that the two are distinct, while another view is that the second helps explain the first. However, which interpretation is correct is unclear. In addition, law enforcement today differs sharply from the period in which the Constitution 's framers lived. During that period, no organized police forces existed that were even remotely like those of today. In contrast, today 's law enforcement officials seem to have broad authority to search and seize. These powers are not generally subject to either statutory or regulatory control, and common law limitations are generally ill defined and

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 defendant, Jim through his lawyer, has the right to appeal for another hearing of his case in a supreme court. When a state court decision is not satisfactory to the defendant because of lack of reasonable explanation, the defendant can ask for clarification for the decision made. The search and seizure of illegal drugs in Mr. Jim’s house was by nature illegal. To begin with the officers were acting on an invalid search warrant which is a violation of the Fourth Amendment, and a police misconduct. The Fourth Amendment was implemented to guard the citizen's privacy rights and restricts the police against unreasonable searches and seizures. For this reason, the drugs seized at Jim’s house should not be used as evidence to convict him. Jim

Teagle 170 P.3d 266 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007), defendant Teagle was pulled over after being observed speeding down the highway. When the officer approached the vehicle, he noticed two cellular phones on the dashboard, an open container of liquor, fast-food wrappers, a box of cookies, a map, and luggage and clothing in the backseat. The officer gave the defendant a warning and then asked him if there was any contraband in the vehicle or whether there was a chance anyone else could have placed any contraband in the vehicle. Although the defendant answered in the negative, the officer returned to his patrol vehicle and asked if there was a canine unit available. There was not and so the officer told the defendant that he was free to leave. Shortly afterwards, the officer saw the defendant speeding once again down the road. The officer proceeded to pull him over and gave him another warning. The officer again asked him if he could search the vehicle and the defendant answered in the affirmative. The officer called a canine unit which arrived an hour later. The canine, in proceeding to do an exterior sniff, circled around to the trunk. The officers then opened the trunk to find 338 pounds of marijuana, a can of air freshener under the driver’s seat and several toilet bowl sanitizers in the compartment ofthe vehicle as well as the trunk. These were all indicative of an attempt to mask the smell of marijuana. At trial, the defendant argued that he had taken his vehicle to a repair shop, implying that someone else had placed the drugs in the car. The court found that there was enough evidence, including the large amount of drugs in the trunk of the vehicle, the air freshener, and the inconsistent statements to determine that the defendant had sufficient knowledge of the marijuana in the

P alleges that he is a drug dealer. P alleges that from March 2010 through January 2011 defendant MOS Tepperman extorted money from him. P claims that when he refused to pay, MOS Tepperman had P arrested. P claims that MOS Tepperman was earsdropping on his cellphone conservation and tracking his whereabouts through GPS. P claims he paid MOS Tepperman money to keep the police away from him. P states that he did sell MOS Tepperman a brick of cocaine in September 2010.

INTRODUCTION: In Terry vs. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), the question of the Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure was brought before the court system. The case looked at the admissibility of evidence discovered during search and seizure, in particular, as it relates to street encounters and investigations between citizens and officers of the law. The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the decision of the 5th Ohio Court of Appeals. This case was of particular importance it helped establish what type of search and seizure behavior was lawful and unlawful on the part of officers, and set clear guidelines. The rulings in this case pertain to the Fourteenth Amendment (Cornell University Law School, n.d.).

Facts: In Lexington, Kentucky, police officers followed a suspected drug dealer to an apartment building where he went. When they arrived outside of the door to the apartment where the suspect was they reportedly could smell marajuana. The police then knocked and shouted they they were there and in return they could hear what sounded like people destroying the evidence and running around. The police then knocked down the door and saw the respondent as well as drugs laying out without having to look anywhere. later the police found more drugs and paraphernalia doing a more in-depth search. “The Circuit Court denied respondent’s motion to suppress the evidence, holding that exigent