The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution states: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable search and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things seized. ” The Fourth Amendment is clearly broken in the case of Weeks v. United States, it was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court unanimously held that the warrantless seizure of items from a private residence constitutes a violation of the Fourth Amendment.It also prevented local officers from securing evidence by means prohibited under the federal exclusionary rule and giving it to their federal colleagues.
It was not until the case of Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U. S. 643 (1961), that the exclusionary rule was deemed to apply to state courts as well. On December 21, 1911, Fremont Weeks, the plaintiff in error and defendant, was arrested by a police officer at the Union Station in Kansas City, Missouri where he was employed by an express company.
Other officers entered the house of the defendant without a search warrant and took possession of papers and articles which were afterwards turned over to the US marshal. The officers returned later in the same day with the marshal, still without a warrant, and seized letters and envelopes they found in the drawer of a chiffonier. These papers were used to convict Weeks of transporting lottery tickets through the mail. Weeks petitioned against the police for the return of his private possessions.In the case Silverthorne Lumber Company, Inc. , Et Al.
v. United States was also a was a U. S. Supreme Court Case in which Silverthorne attempted to evade paying taxes.
Federal agents illegally seized tax books from Silverthorne and created copies of the records. The issue in this case is whether or not derivatives of illegal evidence are permissible in court. The ruling was that to permit derivatives would encourage police to circumvent the Fourth Amendment, so the illegal copied evidence was held tainted and inadmissible.This precedent later became known as the "fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine," and is an extension of the exclusionary rule.
Mapp v. Ohio, was a landmark case in criminal procedure, in which the United States Supreme Court decided that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment, which protects against "unreasonable searches and seizures," may not be used in state law criminal prosecutions in state courts, as well, as had previously been the law, as in federal criminal law prosecutions in federal courts.The Supreme Court accomplished this by use of a principle known as selective incorporation; in this case this involved the incorporation of the provisions, as construed by the Court, of the Fourth Amendment which are literally applicable only to actions of the federal government into the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause which is literally applicable to actions of the states. On May 23, 1957, police officers in a Cleveland, Ohio suburb received information that a suspect in a bombing case, as well as some illegal betting equipment, might be found in the home of Dollree Mapp.
Three officers went to the home and asked for permission to enter, but Mapp refused to admit them without a search warrant. Two officers left, and one remained. Three hours later, the two returned with several other officers. Brandishing a piece of paper, they broke in the door. Mapp asked to see the “warrant” and took it from an officer, putting it in her dress.
The officers struggled with Mapp and took the piece of paper away from her. They handcuffed her for being “belligerent.They didn't find the bombing suspect or the gambling equipment but they did find pornographic material in a suitcase next to her bed. She was arrested, prosecuted, and found guilty for possession of pornographic material.
At the trial no search warrant was produced by the prosecution, nor was the failure to produce one explained or accounted for. At best, "There is, in the record, considerable doubt as to whether there ever was any warrant for the search of defendant's home. ”In Conclusion, in these three cases Weeks v. United States, Silverthorne Lumber Company, Inc. , Et Al. v.
United States, and Mapp v. Ohio , seem to be all about the how the police officers broke the fourth amendment when they performed a search and seizure, I noticed how all these cases where back in the 1900’s , it seemed like the police officers had no respect for the law, the Fourth Amendment, or the citizen of the resident. The courts acted right along with the police officers just as well, They may have committed crimes but there are rules and laws as police officers you have to follow to keep justice in the world. I do feel like now in “2013” we are doing better in maintain and following the Fourth Amendment, the courts are a lot more stricter than in the 1900’s .
