In six pages this paper discusses search and seizure as it pertains to the 4th Amendment's exclusionary rule with relevant case law examined. Six sources are cited in the bibliography.
Name of Research Paper File: RT13_SA1174th.rtf
Unformatted Sample Text from the Research Paper:
topic involves the admissibility of evidence collected as a result of a search and seizure. Several landmark cases are noted. Bibliography lists 6 sources. SA 1174th.doc
Most Americans are familiar with the Constitution and the Amendments that protect them. They understand that they have a right to bear arms,
but are not supposed to walk in the street sporting a rifle. They know they have freedom of speech but are not allowed to scream obscenities in public. While everyone
is somewhat aware of these rights, there are always exceptions, or guidelines in their implementation. As far as the forth amendment is concerned, regarding searches and seizures, most people realize
that a police officer needs a search warrant to enter a home and that they cannot stop and frisk people on a whim. There must be some evidence for people
to be stopped and searched. Reasonable searches and seizures are however allowed. Sometimes an overzealous police officer will break the rules and try to get convincing evidence into court. However,
if evidence was obtained illegally, it will not get in. The exclusionary rule seems to apply to many of these cases. In looking at problems as to what to do
when Fourth Amendment concepts have been violated, the Supreme Court often applies what is called the exclusionary rule (McWhirter, 1994). The exclusionary rule claims that if a police officer
has obtained evidence in a manner that violates the Fourth Amendment, the evidence must be excluded from a trial (1994). Many such cases arise. An officer stops a man on
the street and searches him for no reason. He may find a pound of cocaine. However, the evidence must be excluded from the case if the suspect was searched illegally.