Case Study

Contents

Weeks v. United States, 19144

Rochin V. California, 19525

Mapp V. Ohio 19616

How the Exclusionary Rule has Affected the Use of Evidence Acquired from Police Search and Seizure Cases8

References9

Case Study

Weeks v. United States, 1914

A San Francisco policeman arrested Weeks at the place where Weeks used to conduct his business. When the officer came to arrest Weeks, he carried out the search of his office without any warrant. That search disclosed the proof related to a suspected U.S. mail which was used to send out the lottery tickets. At that time, this was considered as an illegal act by federal law. The police conducted unreasonable and irrelevant search of Weeks's home, to find out the documents that were not related to the investigation of the case. The United States marshal was inspired by the consequences of the searches, associated with the local police and a central postal examiner, as he came back to the residence of Weeks and conducted a search of his room in a third warrantless search, taking away other data and information from his house. Weeks filed this case as he wanted to have his documents back that were even not related, and also asked proof as it was a crime that those documents were attained by the police by means of an illegal search.

This case was considered as a significant question in 4th Amendment question. The questions raised were:

What kind of security is provided to the citizens by 4th Amendment?

How the proof that is acquired by illegal search can be implemented?

What charge can be applied against the police who acquire the proof through an illegal search?

Justice Day addressed the Court's undisputed resolution in order to knock over the conviction of Weeks. The Court stated that the proof that was acquired illegally to be termed as "fruit of the poison tree" and further declared that illegally acquired proof is considered to be disqualified in the upcoming time from any federal court.

Rochin V. California, 1952

The three police officers came into his home and rushed towards his bedroom where they found him with his spouse. The officers entered into his house because they got some news about him of selling narcotics. The officers saw the capsules and when he was asked about the capsules that were on a bedside table, he immediately put them in his mouth and tried to swallow them. Officer made an unsuccessful attempt to pull out them, and then he was taken to the hospital. There an emetic was forcefully injected into his stomach and he vomited those capsules. It was then found that those capsules were containing morphine and he was proved to be criminal through this evidence. These were accepted in proof over his protest, and further he was convicted in a state court of breaking a state law threatening custody of morphine.

The District Court of Appeal declared their conviction on his request, in spite of the searching that the police to felt blame without having the permission to come into Rochin's house and felt ...