WEEK TWO Assignment

Standards of Constitutional Searches and Seizures in the United States CRJ201: Introduction to Criminal Justice
Abstract
This paper explores three United States Supreme Court cases that have explained and defined the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Each of these cases, however, vary in it interpretation of the Fourth Amendment and the protection it provides. In the case, Weeks v. United States (1914), the Supreme Court examines the Fourth Amendment protection against warrantless searches. In the case of Mapp v. Ohio (1961), the Supreme Court examined the Fourth Amendment protection against illegal search and seizure. In the case of Silverthorne Lumber Company, Inc., et al. v. United States (1920), the Supreme Court examined using of evidences collected from a business in a criminal case against individual. Additionally it also examines to limit the government knowledge obtained by the illegal search. These three cases pointed out the protection under the Fourth Amendment and it will continue to do so in our legal system. Standards of Constitutional Searches and Seizures in the United States The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution provides the protection for individual against unreasonable search and seizure by a government law enforcement entity. It outlines what a law enforcement officer or agency must do in order to search an individual’s home and/or person. However, this does always happen, we will discuss few court cases that have expanded and redefined the Fourth Amendment and the protection it affords all individuals. Weeks v. United States. 232 U.S. 383 (1914)

In the case of Weeks v. United States, the defendant, Mr. Fremont Weeks was arrested by police at his work for transporting lottery tickets through the mail, which was a violation of state law. The evidence was seized at Mr. Week’s home by police officer without a search warrant. During court case in the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Missouri, Mr. Weeks petitioned for the return of his private possession as violation of his Fourth Amendment. During the presentation of the government case, the defendant again petitions the court for the return of his property via a motion, however the court denied this motion. The government entered this seized property into evidence. Based upon all evidence present during trial, Mr. Weeks was found guilty and sentenced. The Supreme Court looked at the Fourth Amendment, which provides:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, show 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 to be seized.” The Fourth Amendment placed restriction on federal and state law enforcement officials in exercise of their power and authority, and provided the security for individual citizen from unreasonable searched and seizures on themselves, there home, and there papers under the guise of the law (Weeks, 1914). The Supreme Court viewed each aspect of the case from arrest to the court case. Mr. Weeks was arrested by police officer without a warrant. Second, other police officers visited Mr. Weeks’ home, and with guidance from the neighbor where Mr. Weeks’ kept his house key, they entered and search the home and collected evidences without a warrant (Week, 1914). Finally the District Court in Missouri, failed to apply the protection of the Fourth Amendment in the criminal cased against Mr. Weeks. In view of these violations, the Supreme Court unanimous ruled that the seizure of items from Mr. Weeks’ residence directly violated his Fourth Amendment rights. Based upon the court decision in the Weeks v. United States, private documents seized without a warrant and then held as evidence in the criminal case against an individual would have negate the value of the Fourth...

References: Dripps, D. (2001). The Case for The Contingent Exclusionary Rule. The American Criminal Law Review, 38(1), 1-46. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/230343385?accountid=32521
Weeks v. United States. 232 U.S. 383. (1914). Retrieved from http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8676110639881267815&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr
Goldstein, R. J. (2007). Mapp v. Ohio: Guarding against unreasonable searches and seizures. Perspectives on Political Science, 36(3), 171-172. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/194700767?accountid=32521
Silverthorne Lumber Company, Inc., Et Al. v. United States. 251 U.S. 385. (1920). Retrieved from http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1946214737793111775&q=Silverthorne%20Lumber%20&hl=en&as_sdt=2,15&as_vis=1
Mapp v. Ohio. 367 U.S. 643. (1961). Retrieved from http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=589965672959279882&q=Mapp%20v%20Ohio&hl=en&as_sdt=2,15&as_vis=1
Continue Reading

Please join StudyMode to read the full document

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Week Two Assignment One Essay
  • Week Two Individual Assignment Essay
  • Week Two Assignment Questions Essay
  • MGT 522 Week Two Assignment Essay
  • Essay on Assignment Two
  • Essay on WEEK TWO CMGT 400 INDIVIDUAL ASSIGNMENT
  • Week Two Individual Assignment: the effects of addiction Essay
  • Absorb type activities assignment for week two Essay

Become a StudyMode Member

Sign Up - It's Free