Due Process #5

Exclusionary Rule

Weeks v. US facts?

• Accused of transporting of lottery tickets and local police go to house and search without a warrant, and the neighbor tells them where he keeps the key; they find articles and paper, and turn it over to US marshals

• Later that day, marshals return and look for some additional evidence, in this time, Weeks has a roommate and lets them in

  • Then they find certain papers that they keep

• Weeks petitions court for having his stuff back; says violated 4th amendment rights

Weeks v. US issue?

Looks at two separate searches; was the local or federal search a violation?

Weeks v. US holding?

• Both; wins and the evidence is suppressed that the marshals conducted, however, the evidence that the local police department obtained can be used against him

  • 4th amendment does not apply to states during this time

Silver Platter Doctrine

After Weeks decisions, local police were allowed to conduct unreasonable/illegal searches and seizures and then deliver evidence to federal prosecutors/police "on a silver platter" 

Byars v. US significance

Court ruled evidence unlawfully obtained during a search that was a joint state-federal investigation, would be excluded

Rochin v. CA facts?

• State police suspected of appellant of selling narcotics and broke into home w/ no search warrant

• Then broke into his bedroom and saw narcotics on table side and appellant swallowed the narcotics/pills, then police physically assault him to try to get the pills out of his system

• The police then forcefully take him to the hospital and have him vomit up the pills, he then does and police seize the pills

Rochin v. CA holding?

In favor of Rochin

Rochin v. CA reasoning?

• Court uses test called 'shocks the conscience' since the exclusionary rule did not yet apply to the states

• The behavior by the police is the focus, and was so terrible that is shocked the conscience

  • Evidence is excluded because of 'shocked the conscience

Cupp v. Murphy significance?

• limited bodily intrusion

• has probable cause 

Winston v. Lee significance?

• unreasonable search under 4th

• extensive bodily intrusion

Mapp v. Ohio facts?

• Three policemen arrive at the appellant's residence because of information that they are connected to a recent bombing, and have gambling paraphernalia being hidden in the home.

• Knocked, appellant got on phone with attorney, said cannot enter without search warrant

• Police advised headquarters of situation and undertook a surveillance of the house 3 hours later, four more police tried to go inside again (seven in total), then one of the several doors to the house was forcibly opened

• Attorney arrived, police say they cannot go inside house or see her Mapp demanded to see a search warrant and showed her said "warrant" (which was not a warrant) she grabbed it and placed it in her bra; and then the police assault her to get the ‘warrant' back

• They then arrest her and take her upstairs to her bedroom and search

• Police did a widespread search in the whole house and found evidence in the basement; find obscene books, however, it was literature novels and one hand drawn picture and they charge her with that

• She is then convicted and sentenced to seven years

Mapp v. Ohio holding?

In favor of Mapp

Mapp v. Ohio reasoning?

• To maintain judicial integrity, if you violate 4th amendment, the evidence can be excluded; if a criminal is going to go free, it is the law that is going to set them free

• Deterrence the police that if they violate the 4th amendment, evidence can be excluded, so trying to deter from violating 4th amendment

• Overrule Wolf v. CO, now ER applies to states meaning they can throw out evidence that was illegally obtained by local gov/state police