4th Amendment Rule In Oakland
Description
Form popularity
FAQ
Final answer: Searching a suspect's property before a warrant is issued can be considered a violation of the Fourth Amendment.
If the court finds that a search was conducted in violation of the Fourth Amendment, it will exclude any evidence found from the suspect's criminal case. The exclusionary rule states that the courts will exclude or prevent evidence obtained from an unreasonable search and seizure from a criminal defendant's trial.
To claim a violation of Fourth Amendment rights as the basis for suppressing relevant evidence, courts have long required that the claimant must prove that they were the victim of an invasion of privacy to have a valid standing.
United States, 362 U.S. 257, 261 (1960). That is, the movant must show that he was “a victim of search or seizure, one against whom the search was directed, as distinguished from one who claims prejudice only through the use of evidence gathered as a consequence of search or seizure directed at someone else.” Id.
The exclusionary rule prevents the government from using most evidence gathered in violation of the United States Constitution. The decision in Mapp v. Ohio established that the exclusionary rule applies to evidence gained from an unreasonable search or seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
Three exceptions to the exclusionary rule are "attenuation of the taint," "independent source," and "inevitable discovery."
About the expectation itself, the Supreme Court has explained that what "a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection. But what he seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected."
Now the Exclusionary Rule is a judicially created remedy that excludes evidence that's been collected by law enforcement officers when the officers violated the Constitution.
The Constitution, through the Fourth Amendment, protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. The Fourth Amendment, however, is not a guarantee against all searches and seizures, but only those that are deemed unreasonable under the law.
Decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court have modified the exclusionary rule so much that its exceptions are now more important than the original rule, which will probably continue to exist but not to be used often. The rule is not contained in the actual language of the fourth amendment.
