United States vs. Leon 1984

Only available on StudyMode
  • Download(s) : 13
  • Published : February 25, 2013
Open Document
Text Preview
Mink Johnson
POLS 332i
11.15.12

United States vs. Leon 1984 U.S.

Facts
An informant told a police officer of Burbank, California, that Armando and Patsy Sanchez were selling drugs at their home and some at another location. Police then wanted to have an investigation on the two, since Sanchez had previously been in trouble with the law for marijuana use. Sanchez was thought to be was then linked to Richardo Del Castillo and Alberto Leon. A warrant was issued in the search of the drugs; and once they were convicted they argued evidence seized pursuant to the warrant; the officer did not make point of his reasoning for the warrant.

Statutory Provision
Two prong Establishing Probable Clause

Constitutional Provision
Fourth Amendment Exclusionary Rule

Legal Question
Does the Establishing Probable Clause violate the Exclusionary Rule of the Fourth Amendment?

Legal Reasoning
Justice White:

.The Fourth Amendment does not actually express provision on evidence in violation of commands.

.The exclusionary rule is not intended to help the rights of the defendants which he has already suffered.

.Lo-Ji Sales, Inc vs. New York of 1979 states, in some situations an office good at what they do should wait for a warrant in a case. Nor would an awesome risk proving a case of good belief while waiting on a warrant.

Outcome
Leon loses. The police should have have a warrant issued but since the three were found guilty, they still remain in trouble with the law.

Doctrine
The Court is correct but needs to remember that as police involved in criminal cases, they need to remember the role they play and getting warrants is apart of the job and the law.
tracking img