School district requirements of drug tests for all students participating in any extra-curricular activities were upheld by the Court. An incorrectly written search warrant could result in any evidence obtained being excluded from trial.
The Court held that the executive could not label a U. The Court ruled that using a drug-detection dog does not require a search warrant, as the dog only alerts to the presence of illicit substances, for which their is no reasonable expectation of privacy.
Police who did not first knock on the door, announce themselves, and wait a reasonable time before forcing their way in, would still be subject to any penalties called for by state law, but evidence obtained could still be used at trial. The Military Commission Act of was an unconstitutional suspension of the writ of habeas corpus for prisoners being held at Guantanamo Bay.
Detainees had the Fifth Amendment right not to be deprived of liberty without due process of law, and were protected by the Geneva Conventions. Upcoming Events Explore our upcoming webinars, events and programs.
View All Events. Invest In Our Future The most effective way to secure a freer America with more opportunity for all is through engaging, educating, and empowering our youth.
Support now Make your investment into the leaders of tomorrow through the Bill of Rights Institute today! Make a Donation.
Learn More. About BRI The Bill of Rights Institute engages, educates, and empowers individuals with a passion for the freedom and opportunity that exist in a free society. Page: Resources Library Arrow icon. Category: Educator Resources. Criminal Procedure, Search and Seizure, and Due Process How has the Supreme Court interpreted rights concerning criminal procedure, search and seizure, and due process? Powell v. Alabama The Court ruled that indigent members of society in this case, the Scottsboro Boys , when charged with a capital crime, must be given competent counsel at the expense of the public.
Betts v. Brady The Court refused to grant the right to an attorney to all indicted or accused individuals; they believed the courts must hear each non-capital situation and decide on a case-by-case basis.
Bartkus v. Illinois The Court ruled that prosecutions in state and federal courts for the same act are not violations of due process and double jeopardy protections; persons may be tried twice for the same crimes, once in federal court and once in state court. Mapp v. Robinson v. Gideon v. Wainwright The Supreme Court overturned Betts v. Escobedo v. Miranda v.
Arizona Since the police had not informed Mr. Terry v. Furman v. Gregg v. Ingraham v. Wright Corporal punishment in schools is not prohibited under the Eighth Amendment as cruel and unusual.
Nix v. Williams The Court found that if police learn of evidence by unconstitutional means, they may still introduce it at trial if they can prove that they would have found the evidence anyway through constitutional means. New Jersey v. Vernonia v. Chandler v. Knowles v. Wyoming v. Houghton Police may search the belongings of all passengers in a car when lawfully seeking evidence against the driver.
Bond v. United States The Fourth Amendment is violated when officials squeeze a carry-on bag in a bus overhead compartment and discover illicit drugs. Dickerson v. Under Illinois v. Krull , evidence may be admissible if the officers rely on a statute that is later invalidated. In Herring v. Evidence initially obtained during an unlawful search or seizure may later be admissible if the evidence is later obtained through a constitutionally valid search or seizure. Murray v. Additionally, some courts recognize an "expanded" doctrine, in which a partially tainted warrant is upheld if, after excluding the tainted information that lead to its issuance, the remaining untainted information establishes probable cause sufficient to justify its issuance.
Related to the independent source doctrine, above, and also adopted in Nix v. Williams , the inevitable discovery doctrine allows admission of evidence that was discovered in an unlawful search or seizure if it would have be discovered in the same condition anyway, by an independent line of investigation that was already being pursued when the unlawful search or seizure occurred. In cases where the relationship between the evidence challenged and the unconstitutional conduct is too remote and attenuated, the evidence may be admissible.
See Utah v. Brown v. Illinois , cited in Strieff , articulated three factors for the courts to consider when determining attenuation: temporal proximity, the presence of intervening circumstances, and the purpose and flagrancy of the official misconduct. The Supreme Court recognized this exception in Harris v. New York as a truth-testing device to prevent perjury. Even when the government suspects perjury , however, it may only use tainted evidence for impeachment , and may not use it to show guilt.
Due to qualified immunity , the exclusionary rule is often a defendant's only remedy when police officers conduct an unreasonable search or violate their Miranda rights.
Even if officers violate a defendant's constitutional or statutory rights, qualified immunity protects the officers from a lawsuit unless no reasonable officer would believe that the officers' conduct was legal.
Please help us improve our site! No thank you. Exclusionary Rule Primary tabs Overview The exclusionary rule prevents the government from using most evidence gathered in violation of the United States Constitution. Derivatives of Excluded Evidence If evidence that falls within the scope of the exclusionary rule led law enforcement to other evidence , which they would not otherwise have located, then the exclusionary rule applies to the newly discovered evidence , subject to a few exceptions.
0コメント