Constitutional Policing: Silverthorn Lumber Vs. United States

Constitutional Policing
Aaron M. Green
CRJ 201
Professor: Deborah Tremblay
September 15, 2014

The police have been empowered by the government with the power to investigate and make arrests in connections to violations of law. The police must abide by the law in their pursuit to uphold law. The courts in the United States examine police, procedure and behavior, and can overturn, overrule or modify violations of law and procedure that do not adhere to due process. Examples of the courts influence on policing procedures can be found in cases such as Weeks vs. United States (1914), Silverthorn Lumber vs. United States (1920), and Mapp vs. Ohio (1961). If the issues are examined one can see the precedents the courts used to
United States again there were accusations of law enforcement violating the defendants Fourth Amendment rights. In this case the Silverthorn’s were arrested at their homes on the morning of February 25, 1919, while the Silverthorns were in custody. Agent’s from the Department of Justice and the United States Marshals made a search without a warrant of the Silverthorn’s office in which they collected books, papers and documents. The evidence collected was photographed and copied by authorities. After a complaint by the Sliverthorns the originals were returned, however the copies were retained by authorities. New charges were filed against the Silverthorns from evidence collected from the copies and subpoenas were issued to produce the original documents. The courts ordered the subpoenas be complied with in spite of the fact the court’s ruling that the originals had been seized in violation of the parties’ constitutional rights. It is clear the authorities could not have arrived at the information needed to render charges against the Silverthorns without their illegal copies of wrongfully collected evidence thus making the copies “fruit of the poisonous tree.” The copies of all documents should have been returned along with the originals to the Silverthorns and further lawful investigation conducted in an effort to render new
Ohio we are instead dealing with state constitutional law and not on the federal level. On May 23, 1957 three officers arrived as a two family dwelling in which Miss. Mapp resided on the second floor with her daughter from a previous marriage. The police were at the residence in search of a person of interest in a recent bombing and information pertaining to the bombing. The police made illegal entry into Miss. Mapp’s home and with her in custody began to search her home. There were claims of excessive force and Miss. Mapp was not allowed to speak with her attorney whom was on scene when police entry was made. Evidence was collected from various locations around Miss. Mapp’s home and she was placed under arrest. Even at her trial no search warrant was produced nor was there an explanation as to why one could not be produced. The state of Ohio claimed even if the search were made without authority, or otherwise unreasonably, it is not prevented from using the unconstitutionally seized evidence at trial. (MAPP vs. OHIO, 1961) The state cited Wolf vs. Colorado in which the courts found “that in a prosecution in a State court for a State crime the Fourteenth Amendment does not forbid the admission of evidence obtained by an unreasonable search and seizure." (MAPP vs. OHIO, 1961) If the case had been tried in a federal court the evidence obtained in the search would not have been admissible, however since it was tried on the state level the exclusionary