mental capacity but in the world of law competency as used to describe evidence means that the evidence is relevant and is appropriate confirmation that is not barred by any exclusionary rule. Evidence can be inadmissible all though it may be both authentic and relevant because of its incompetency based on the exclusionary rule such as public policy (spousal privileges), reliability ( statement of witness-hearsay), and undue prejudice. Evidence can be relevant and authentic but is considered inadmissible
Words: 295 - Pages: 2
P2). B. Assuming the warrant was signed by the judge and it was later determined that the probable cause was lacking, would the evidence that was seized be suppressed by the court? Why or why not? Under the Exclusionary Rule the evidence would be suppressed. The Exclusionary Rule prevents the prosecution from using evidence collected in violation of a defendant’s right (Coernell P1). Additionally any evidence discovered as a result of this evidence becomes known as the Fruits of the Poisonous
Words: 584 - Pages: 3
property and that one was denied. In the end of this case the court unanimously ruled that the seizure of property from a private home without a warrant was indeed a violation of the Fourth Amendment. This was also the case that created the “exclusionary rule”. This means that any evidence that is gained in violation of the Fourth Amendment in not admissible in court at trial. The next case is Silverthorne Lumber Company, Inc., ET AL v. United States. This was a US Supreme court
Words: 1077 - Pages: 5
Define due process and its origins. According to our text book; "The Due Process is protection against arbitrary deprivation of life, liberty, or property as guaranteed in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments." (Wilson, 2009, p. 33). The origins of the due process can be traced back to 1868 thanks to the fourteenth amendment being ratified that year. What is vital to know about the fourth teen amendment is this "No state shall deprive any person life of life, liberty
Words: 668 - Pages: 3
Kevin Clark Sr. Week Two Assignment CRJ201: Introduction to Criminal Justice Instructor: Ronald Kemper September 17, 2013 Week v. United States What is the main issue or question involved in the case? Weeks v. United States was a Supreme Court case that the Court unanimously held that the warrantless seizure of items from a private residence constitutes a violation of the Fourth Amendment. On December 21, 1911 Mr. Weeks was arrested by police without a warrant, at the Union Station
Words: 1331 - Pages: 6
Mapp V.Ohio in 1961 this case was brought to the US. Supreme Court. This Case took place in Cleveland Ohio when several police officers forces their way into map house without a search warrant. This case changed the system by forming the exclusionary rule. The police suspected that Mapp was harboring a bomber and demanded entry into her house. The police officers went to her house ask for permission to enter, she said no she wanted to see a search warrant. She also called her lawyer and still refuses
Words: 598 - Pages: 3
Maitri Spence-Sharpe, ADMJ 2 Sec. 8001 Citation: Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961) Facts: Three police officers went to Miss Dollree Mapp's home looking for a person wanted for questioning regarding a bombing. They had been informed that the person was hiding in Miss Mapp's house. She did not let them in because her attorney advised her not to unless the officers had a search warrant. The police remained outside doing surveillance until more officers arrived a few hours later. At that point they
Words: 546 - Pages: 3
that the officer could use discretion as to whether the vehicle was safe to operate. On the other hand, Heien’s lawyers claim that just as ignorance is no defense for citizens, it should not be a defense for police officers. We covered the exclusionary rule through Weeks v US and Mapp v Ohio, which made it law for the US and the States respectively. We also discussed the Fruit of the Poisonous tree Doctrine in Silverthorne v US and Wong Sun v US. The good faith exception that the state is claiming
Words: 445 - Pages: 2
strict laws against hearsay evidence if it is proved accurate it can be used as an admissible statement in California court. A statement must not be coerced and their Miranda rights must have been read to them. The judge has the final say. Exclusionary Rule Neil vs. California California Supreme court and reversed a conviction on the grounds that Detective Martin Coerced a confession from Neil. The repeated violation of Miranda safeguards that Neil’s youth and lack of education and low intelligence
Words: 329 - Pages: 2
Intellectual Property Law. In State v. Buswell, the Minnesota Supreme Court held that the protection of the Fourth Amendment was limited to government action and thus any private searches conducted by private citizens were not covered by the exclusionary rule. Thus, if evidence is seized through a private search, then it can be handed over to the police to be applied in a court of law as evidence for an offense (State v. Buswell, 1990). Handing over the information obtained through the search of Mr
Words: 1396 - Pages: 6
