Argumentative Essay: Unwarrantless Search

Issue: Was the evidence discovered during the search and seizure conducted in violation of the fourth amendment of the constitution? Also can you obtain items that are not to be seized for the search and seizure?

was a warrant in the first place. Even so, the evidence collected illegally was presented during the case. As reasoning, the case of Wolf vs. Colorado was cited,

Another case that establishes the premise for determining the validity of the search includes United States v. Matlock. The question before the Court in Matlock was whether the third party's consent for the police to search the defendant's house was "legally sufficient" to render the evidence admissible at trial. Police officers arrested the defendant in his front yard, but did not request his permission to search the house. Instead, some of the police officers approached the house and requested permission to search from Mrs. Graff, who lived in the house with defendant. Mrs. Graff consented to the search and the officers found nearly $5,000 in cash in a closet. Both the district court and the court of appeals excluded the evidence from the trial, finding that Mrs. Graff did not have the authority to consent to the search. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to settle this evidentiary issue. Justice White, for the Court, espoused the

Her attorney argued that she should never have been brought to trial because the material evidence resulted from an illegal, warrant less search. Because the search was unlawful, he maintained that the evidence was illegally obtained and must also be excluded. In its ruling, the Supreme Court of Ohio recognized that ?a reasonable argument? could be made that the conviction should be reversed ?because the ?methods? employed to obtain the evidence?were such as to offend a sense of justice.? But the court also stated that the materials were admissible evidence. The Court explained its ruling by differentiating between evidence that was peacefully seized from an inanimate object, such as a trunk, rather than forcibly seized from an individual. Based on this decision, Mapp's appeal was denied and her conviction was upheld.

Is evidence obtained in violation of the fourth amendment, prohibiting “unreasonable searches and seizures” admissible as evidence in criminal procedures?

On June 4th, 1990, Terry Brice Horton vs. California was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held 7-2 that the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit warrantless seizure of evidence, which is granted due to the plain view doctrine. The discovery of the evidence does not have to be inadvertent, although that is a characteristic of most legitimate plain view seizures.

The Fourth Amendment is a persons right to privacy and protects them from an unlawful search and seizure. When an officer conducts an unlawful search and illegally collects evidence, the officer might try to present the evidence in the suspects trial.As a result of unreasonable search and seizure, the exclusionary rule was created. The exclusionary rule states that any criminal evidence collected by law enforcement officials in violation of a persons fourth amendments rights is inadmissible in court (Schmalleger, 128). However, the exclusionary rule was established to ensure that police officers abide by the rules and obtain warrants that permit them to effectively conduct a search and arrests, especially if the arrest made may lead to the

Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961) Evidence that is acquired in violation under the Fourth Amendment is prohibited in a court of law and unconstitutional.

Under the fourth amendment, each individual in the United States is protected against unreasonable search as seizures. However, if there is probable cause law enforcement can perform a warrantless search without a warrant. Some examples in which law enforcement perform warrantless searches include: consent to search, plain view, and extreme emergency purposes. Under the fourth amendment, law enforcement can perform a warrantless search under these conditions. The reason law enforcement can perform a warrantless search based on consent is because an individual has given them the right to search their property. Therefore, anything that an officer find can be used in court. In the Schneckloth v. Bustamante 1973 case, the U.S. Supreme Court held

One controversial aspect of the Fourth Amendment is of how courts should seize evidence obtained illegally. The rights guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment in the Bill of Rights states that “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.” However, it does not explain clearly what an unreasonable search or seizure is and in what cases a police officer should take caution when searching or seizing a suspect. As cases arose in which defendants brought these questions into court, the Supreme Court decided it would need to establish rules which the federal government would implement so that the government doesn’t abuse/overlook the people’s

There are, however, times when warrantless searches are conducted and evidence gathered is allowed to be used a trial. Firstly there is the plain view doctrine which states that police do not need a warrant to take possession of illegal property if it is in the plain view of the officer. After a person has been placed under arrest, the

cause to search him thus the search was illegal and the gun should not be admitted as evidence.

Search and seizure is a vital and controversial part of criminal justice, from the streets to the police station to court. It is guided by the Fourth Amendment, which states that people have the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure of their bodies, homes, papers, and possessions and that warrants describing what and where will be searched and/or seized are required to be able to search the above things (“Fourth Amendment,” n.d.). Interpretations of the Fourth Amendment by the U.S. Supreme Court and the establishment of case law by many state and federal courts have expanded upon the circumstances under which search and seizure is legal. Several doctrines and exceptions have also emerged from the Supreme Court and other case law that guide law enforcement officers on the job and aid lawyers in court.

When conducting possible searches and seizers, the Fourth Amendment is made to protect unreasonable conduct. Due to

As a result of law enforcement officers violating the defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights, the concept of “the fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine can be applied in this situation (Gardner & Anderson, 2016, p. 218). “The fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine can be defined as, “Evidence obtained legally through the use of evidence obtained illegally” (Gardner & Anderson, 2016, p. 218). This doctrine applies to the case because the officers made an unlawful search of the defendant’s vehicle and residence, and seized evidence that could incriminate the defendant (Gardner & Anderson, 2016). The evidence obtained is the fruit from the illegal search of the property, and should be concluded as inadmissible evidence in court (Gardner & Anderson,