0
What else can I help you with?
What is a mincy warrant?
a mincy warrant: Ohio v. mincy 2007 evidence introduced in a criminal trial against a defendent without notifying the defense beforehand is inadmissible (surprise evidence) a mincey warrant: mincey v. Arizona 1978 evidence obtained in an extented search not necessary to prevent harm, injury etc. is inadmissible without first having obtained a warrant. when police suspect i crime in process or injured person(s) need help inside a locked house e.g., the entry and obtained evidence are legal. any further evidence , obtained through an extended search, not warranted to protect or save a persons life or safety and/or not related to the original crime if one was committed, is not admissable.
If permission given to search car by someone other then car owner is it illegal search?
If permission is given by the operator of the vehicle for the police to search it, then it is a legal search. The operator is the person responsible for the vehicle and as such they have the right to give permission.
What could cause evidence to be inadmissible in court?
Hearsay
In Rochin v. California the Supreme Court ruled that the suspect could not be tried because?
the evidence against him was obtained through a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, specifically by the use of excessive physical force during the search and seizure process.
What is the permission to look for evidence of a crime in a particular location called?
The permission to look for evidence of a crime in a particular location is called a search warrant, which is a legal document issued by a judge that authorizes law enforcement officers to search a specific location for specified items related to a criminal investigation.
What does the exclusionary rule exclude?
It excludes anything that obtained in an illegal search It excludes evidence that was obtained by an illegal search from being used by the government at a criminal trial.
What is Illegally Obtained Evidence and its effects?
if an unlawful search of your property/residence/vehicle is conducted without your consent, and evidence of a crime is found, its an illegal search, the judge can throw out the evidence if an illegal search was done
What does the exclusionary rule dictate?
The exclusionary rule dictates that any evidence obtained with an improperly received search warrant or evidence obtained without any search warrant would be held inadmissible in a criminal trial.
What happens if a search by a law enforcement official is illegal?
Any evidence obtained as a result of that search is null and void in court or hearings, and the officials concerned may face disciplinary action for misconduct.
What is the inevitable discovery exception?
The inevitable discovery exception is a legal doctrine that allows evidence obtained through an illegal search or seizure to be admissible in court if the prosecution can show that in the normal course of events, the evidence would have been discovered legally. This exception is intended to prevent the suppression of evidence that would have been obtained lawfully regardless of any illegal police conduct.
Can evidence obtained in an illegal search be used as evidence in a criminal trial?
No.Another View: The above is not a 100% factual answer. Where the law is concerned never say "never!"Virtually every defense attorney is going to challenge '''any''' evidence against their client as "fruit of the poisoned tree" whether it was illegally obtained, or not, and make the prosecution document the steps taken in recovering it.The defense MUST challenge it as inadmissible.There ARE cases where evidence challenged as "illegally obtained" HAS been ruled admissible, either by the trial court or, subsequently, on appeal.Yes, evidence obtained by an illegal search can possibly be admitted as evidence. While the default assumption is that all evidence obtained as a part of a search which is ruled illegal is inadmissible, there is a large exception. If the prosecution can show inevitable discovery of the evidence, then it can be admitted. Inevitable discovery is a concept where the discovery of the evidence would have happened during subsequent searches which were not performed because the evidence was discovered in the initial (illegal) search.For example: police are waiting for a warrant to search a warehouse of a known counterfeiter. At 10pm, the police, without the warrant, enter the warehouse based on a premise that is later ruled illegal (i.e. they conducted an illegal search at that point in time). During the 10pm search, they discover a printing press and other evidence of counterfeiting. The prosecutor, unaware of the 10pm search, gets a judge to sign the search warrant at 11pm. At trial, the presiding judge, after ruling the 10pm search illegal, would still rule that the evidence obtained from the illegal 10pm search is in fact admissible, since it would have been inevitably discovered by a search conducted at 11pm with the valid search warrant.Basically, the police have to show that in the course of their normal investigative process, they would have found the evidence by legal means.A second exception to the exclusionary rule is if the police making the search act in good faith, then, even if the search is later ruled illegal, the evidence obtained is admissible. A good faith search occurs when police, acting on information that they have no reason to doubt as genuine, nonetheless complete a search which is illegal.The two major examples of this are: police obtain a search warrant before a search. However, later on, the warrant itself is declared invalid. The search is illegal, but the evidence obtained is still admissible. The second example is when a police officer does a post-arrest search (normally allowable), but where the basis for the arrest were faulty through no fault of the arresting officer. This can occur when when a police officer checks for outstanding arrest warrants for a person, and the dispatch incorrectly indicates one exists (creating the reason for the arrest and authority to search). If a computer or records error is later shown to indicate there WAS NO arrest warrant, the police officer's search is was illegal, but the evidence is still admissible, since the officer had no reason to assume a clerical error had taken place.The restriction on the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule is that there must be no pattern of misbehavior on the police's part - that is, if the police deliberately misinform the judge to get the warrant, or if recordskeeping is known to be sloppy or negligently maintained, then the police CANNOT invoke the good faith exception, as their systemic negligence means they are now operating in bad faith.
What legal principles excludes from introduction at trial evidence obtained as a result of an illegal search and seizure?
The "exclusionary rule" was first developed in Mapp v. Ohio. If there was an illegal search/seizure, any evidence obtained as a direct result of that action is "the fruit of the poisonous tree" and should be excluded. However, the USSC has progressively weakened the fourth amendment protections available to criminal defendants, and most cases fall into an exception of some type, allowing the evidence in.
What happens if the police unlawfully obtain evidence without a search warrant?
The obtained evidence will probably be ruled inadmissable in court. This is known as the "Fruit of the Poison Tree" doctrine, which also applies if evidence that was legally obtained was from an illegal search or illegal source.
How do you prove innocence in an illegal search and seizure?
To prove innocence in a case involving illegal search and seizure, one must first demonstrate that the search violated the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. This typically involves showing that law enforcement lacked probable cause or a warrant. If successful, any evidence obtained from the illegal search may be deemed inadmissible in court, weakening the prosecution's case. Additionally, presenting alibi evidence or alternative explanations can further support a claim of innocence.
What is the term used when a search warrant finds something else than what they were looking for heard the term used on CSI something about fruit?
The term you're looking for is "fruit of the poisonous tree." This legal doctrine refers to evidence obtained through illegal means or in violation of a person's rights, which may render the evidence inadmissible in court. In the context of a search warrant, if law enforcement discovers evidence unrelated to the warrant's intended purpose and that evidence was obtained unlawfully, it can be considered "fruit of the poisonous tree."
What is a mincy warrant?
a mincy warrant: Ohio v. mincy 2007 evidence introduced in a criminal trial against a defendent without notifying the defense beforehand is inadmissible (surprise evidence) a mincey warrant: mincey v. Arizona 1978 evidence obtained in an extented search not necessary to prevent harm, injury etc. is inadmissible without first having obtained a warrant. when police suspect i crime in process or injured person(s) need help inside a locked house e.g., the entry and obtained evidence are legal. any further evidence , obtained through an extended search, not warranted to protect or save a persons life or safety and/or not related to the original crime if one was committed, is not admissable.
If permission given to search car by someone other then car owner is it illegal search?
If permission is given by the operator of the vehicle for the police to search it, then it is a legal search. The operator is the person responsible for the vehicle and as such they have the right to give permission.
