Due Process and Search and Seizure- 4 th and 14 th Amendments.
-
Upload
molly-bauer -
Category
Documents
-
view
222 -
download
1
Transcript of Due Process and Search and Seizure- 4 th and 14 th Amendments.
Due Process and Search Due Process and Search and Seizure- 4and Seizure- 4thth and 14 and 14thth
AmendmentsAmendments
Selective IncorporationSelective Incorporation of the Bill of Rights is the legal
doctrine by which portions of the U.S. Bill of Rights are
applied to the states through the Due Process Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment.
The Fourth AmendmentThe Fourth Amendment
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The first part provides protection against
unreasonable searches and seizures.
The second part of the amendment provides for the
proper issue of specific warrants
WeeksWeeks v. v. United United StatesStates (1914) established the exclusionary ruleexclusionary rule barring the admission of illegally obtained evidence in federal courts.
What to do with illegally What to do with illegally obtained evidence?obtained evidence?
• Do not allow evidence obtained illegally
• Allow evidence and punish the officer for collecting evidence improperly
Mapp v. Ohio (1961)Mapp v. Ohio (1961)
Sgt. Carl Delau, a vice cop in plainclothes, rang the buzzer of Mapp's second story home. The woman
looked out a window.
"Let Me In, Dollree""Let Me In, Dollree"
The Court declared that "all evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Constitution is, by [the Fourth Amendment], inadmissible in a
state court."
Mapp v. Ohio (1961)Mapp v. Ohio (1961)
“The Exclusionary Rule” is selectively incorporated.
As a result, states could not use evidence obtained illegally, to convict an individual.
Searches and Seizures without WarrantsSearches and Seizures without Warrants
•Things in “Plain View”
•Things in “Open Fields”
•Things in “Immediate Control”once an arrest has been made
•Voluntary Consent to Search ***
• “Protective Sweep Search”
• Emergencies “Exigent circumstances”
Terry v. Ohio (1968)Terry v. Ohio (1968)
Nix v. Williams Nix v. Williams (1984)(1984)
SCOTUS institutes the “inevitable discovery”
exception.
U.S. v. Leon (1984)U.S. v. Leon (1984)
SCOTUS institutes the “good-faith” exception.
The “MappMapp Rule Rule” has since been modified by decisions of the
Burger Court, including NixNix v. v. WilliamsWilliams, 1984 (inevitable inevitable
discovery rulediscovery rule), and U.S.U.S. v. v. LeonLeon, 1984 (“good faith” exception“good faith” exception), so the exclusionary rule is no longer as absolute as when first handed
down in Mapp.
Search and Seizure and SchoolSearch and Seizure and School
New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985)New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985)
SCOTUS institutes “reasonable suspicion” rule as opposed to “probable
cause.”
Vernonia School District v. Vernonia School District v. Acton (1995)Acton (1995)
SCOTUS upheld mandatory suspicionless
drug testing for all students participating
in athletics.
Board of Education v. Earls Board of Education v. Earls (2002)(2002)
SCOTUS upheld
mandatory suspicionless drug testing
for all students.
““Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine”Doctrine”