In Hudson v. Michigan, the Supreme Court held that evidence need not be excluded despite the fact that the police had violated the Fourth Amendment by failing to knock and announce their presence before conducting a search. The Court said that the constitutional violation was not a but-for cause of the seizure; the police would have obtained the evidence even if they had knocked. Hudson's analysis threatens to withdraw the exclusionary remedy whenever the police have conducted a search in an unconstitutional manner-most notably, when they have failed to obtain a warrant before searching. The Court's decision is likely to withdraw the remedy in the cases in which it is most likely to work and to leave the police with little incentive to conduct searches properly. Even scholars critical ...
This Note presents a split between two federal circuit courts regarding the interaction of the standing doctrine and the inevitable discovery exception to the exclusionary rule. The courts had to decide whether evidence obtained illegally from both a criminal defendant and a third party may be admitted in court through use of the inevitable discovery exception to the exclusionary rule. The standing doctrine requires that there be a violation of the defendant's own constitutional rights in order for the court to suppress the evidence through use of the exclusionary rule. The inevitable discovery exception to the exclusionary rule allows the government to use illegally obtained evidence if law enforcement officials would have eventually discovered it by legal means. The First Circuit com...
There is a growing public awareness that the war on terror has also become a war on the civil liberties of Americans, that we are trading privacy for the illusion of security and will soon have neither. The assault on our rights that began more than 20 years ago with the war on drugs has mushroomed in the last few years. Now there is a threat to one of the last remaining bulwarks against governmental intrusions into our lives: the exclusionary rule, which provides that evidence illegally seized by the police cannot be used as evidence in court. The simple fact is that the exclusionary rule is vital to the preservation of our liberties and must be maintained.
The justices of the U.S. Supreme Court tussled Monday with the limits of the exclusionary rule when the police conduct a search in a way that is lawful at the time, but later deemed unconstitutional by the Court. Willie Gene Davis, the petitioner in Davis v. U.S., was a passenger during a traffic stop. After the driver was arrested for drunk driving, police asked Davis to identify himself and he gave a false name.
The exclusionary rule does not preclude admission of evidence collected in a search conducted in objectively reasonable reliance on binding appellate precedent at the time, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled. The defendant was a passenger in a car when it was pulled over and the driver was arrested for drunk driving.
ver las páginas en versión mobile | web
ver las páginas en versión mobile | web
© Copyright 2012, vLex. All Rights Reserved.
Contents in vLex United States
Explore vLex
For Professionals
For Partners
Company
Other interesting searches:
Kurt Westergaard | Yorkshire Bank | Santiago Nieto | espionage sydney | Sunday Sun | segmentacion clientes | Tresses | assemblea costituente italiana | ley hidrocarburos bolivia
