0
Want this question answered?
Be notified when an answer is posted
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
What is the significance of US v Calandra 414 US 338?
grand juries are not held to the same standard in regards to the exclusionary rule as police are... the exclusionary rule deters unlawful police conduct allowing the exclusionary rule for grand juries "unduly" interferes with the duties of the grand jury that are in merits supposed to be quick and effective Holding: The Court holds that the exclusionary rule in search and seizure cases does not apply to grand jury proceedings because the principal objective of the rule is "to deter future unlawful police conduct," and "it is unrealistic to assume that application of the rule to grand jury proceedings would significantly further that goal." Dissent: exclusionary rule protects against "all potential victims of unlawful government conduct"
The US Supreme Court has declined to extend the exclusionary rule to searches conducted by whom?
The Supreme Court created an exception to the exclusionary rule for searches conducted by school administrators.
In what year did the US Supreme Court extend the exclusionary rule to the States?
1961The US Supreme Court extended the exclusionary rule to the state as a result of their decision in Mapp v. Ohio, 367 US 643 (1961). The rule was originally created and applied to the federal government in Weeks v. US, (1914).
Which us supreme court cases was responsible for the creation of the exclusionary rule?
chimel v. califorina
What was Justice Stewart's opinion in the US Supreme Court case Mapp v. Ohio?
Mapp v. Ohio, 367 US 643 (1961)Justice Potter Stewart voted with the 6-3 majority to apply the Exclusionary Rule (Fourth Amendment Search and Seizure protection) to the states, but didn't write a separate concurring opinion.For more information, see Related Questions, below.
Which US Supreme Court case made the exclusionary rule applicable to seizures done by federal officers?
Weeks v. US, (1914) was the case that established the "exclusionary rule," preventing evidence gathered through illegal or unreasonable search and seizure of a suspect from being used to prosecute the suspect in court. This Fourth Amendment Search and Seizure protection originally applied only to federal casesbecause the Supreme Court hadn't incorporated much of the Bill of Rights to the States in 1914.Case Citation:Weeks v. US, 232 US 383 (1914)
How does Weeks v. US apply to Mapp v. Ohio?
The decision in Mapp applied the Exclusionary Rule developed from Weeks to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause.More Information:Weeks v. US, 232 US 383 (1914) was the case that established the "exclusionary rule," preventing evidence gathered through illegal or unreasonable search and seizure of a suspect from being used to prosecute the suspect in court. This Fourth Amendment Search and Seizure protection originally applied only to federal cases because the Supreme Court hadn't incorporated much of the Bill of Rights to the States in 1914.In Wolf v. Colorado, 338 US 25 (1949), the Supreme Court decided the exclusionary rule didn't apply to the states, but the Warren Court reversed this stance in Mapp v. Ohio, 367 US 643 (1961), holding "All evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Federal Constitution is inadmissible in a criminal trial in a state court."For more information, see Related Questions, below.
Does the Schengen rule apply to tourists returning fro Fermany to the US?
Why does the Schengen rule apply to american tourists returning from Germany to the usa
What famous case was about illegally obtained evidence being inadmissible in court?
There were two famous US Supreme Court cases on this topic, although most people only remember the more recent one, Mapp v. Ohio, (1961). In Mapp, the Warren Court applied the Fourth Amendment Exclusionary Rule developed in Weeks v. US, (1914), to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause. The Exclusionary Rule prevents illegally obtained evidence from being used to convict a defendant.Weeks v. US, 232 US 383 (1914) was the case that established the "exclusionary rule," preventing evidence gathered through illegal or unreasonable search and seizure of a suspect from being used to prosecute the suspect in court. This Fourth Amendment Search and Seizure protection originally applied only to federal cases because the Supreme Court hadn't incorporated much of the Bill of Rights to the States in 1914.In Wolf v. Colorado, 338 US 25 (1949), the Supreme Court decided the exclusionary rule didn't apply to the states, but the Warren Court reversed this stance in Mapp v. Ohio,367 US 643 (1961), holding "All evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Federal Constitution is inadmissible in a criminal trial in a state court."For more information, see Related Questions, below.
Do you file taxes if you moved to the US in December?
I am not an expert but I am guessing the 6 month rule or the where you lived the longest rule would apply.
What are exceptions to the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine?
The fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine is an extension of the Exclusionary Rule that applies to indirect evidence obtained through a Fourth Amendment illegal search and seizure.There are several exceptions to both the Exclusionary Rule and the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine:Independent Source Doctrine: Evidence discovered in part from an independent, untainted source. [Murray v. United States,(1988)]Inevitable Discovery Rule: the evidence would have been found despite the unconstitutional action. [Nix v. William, (1984)]Attenuated Connection Principle: The chain of cause and effect is too attenuated to tie directly to the unconstitutional action. [Wong Sun v. United States, (1963)]Good Faith Rule: A search warrant not based on probable cause was issued, but acted upon in good faith by government agents. [US v. Leon, (1984).]
What is an exception to the exclusionary rule?
The exclusionary rule applies to the evidence allowable in a criminal case. One exception is the "good faith exception" established by the US Supreme Court case, United States v. Leon. This exception provides that in some cases evidence discovered in an otherwise illegal search may be used at trial rather than excluded, provided the search had been made in good faith. This means that if the police honestly believed that the search was legal (even though on further review of the facts it was not), the evidence obtained will not be excluded. This applies to officers' objective, good-faith reliance on a warrant, later found to be defective, issued by a detached and neutral magistrate. (See below link)
