Weeks Vs United States
Weeks vs United States
By: Daven Baker
Historic Background
the U.S. Supreme Court used the common law rule and permitted States and federal courts to admit evidence gained by an illegal search to convict an accused offender
Common law – judges decided whether evidence that had little to do with a case could be admitted
Fremont Weeks was arrested at his business, where officers searched the site without a warrant
Evidence collected from the illegal search was used to convict Weeks of transporting lottery tickets through the mail
Weeks then petitioned for the return of his possessions which were seized
Frame the Issue
Legal: Did the search and seizure of Weeks’ home violated
Weeks’ Fourth Amendment rights to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures
Public Policy:
Values in Conflict: Which value is more important, the government abiding by the Constitution or ignoring the
Constitution in order to enforce the law?
Practical:
Arguments
Weeks’ view: The 4th Amendment states that people are safe from unreasonable and searches without a warranty. And any evidence obtained from illegal an search is illegal. Federal officials should not be able to break the law in order to enforce the law.
United States’ view: An arrest was made in connection with a search, and further searches produced further evidence of illegal activity. The officers had growing evidence which suggested Weeks’ illegal activity. Evidence against Weeks proved his guilt and he should be punished.
Decision
The Court‘s unanimous decision was to overturn Weeks's conviction. The Court declared the evidence illegally gained and ordered the evidence be excluded in the future from any federal court
The Court established the Exclusionary Rule, which excludes any illegally obtained evidence from any unreasonable search or seizure, improper self-incriminatory statements, situations where defendants’ Sixth Amendment right to counsel to be used in court
By: Daven Baker
Historic Background
the U.S. Supreme Court used the common law rule and permitted States and federal courts to admit evidence gained by an illegal search to convict an accused offender
Common law – judges decided whether evidence that had little to do with a case could be admitted
Fremont Weeks was arrested at his business, where officers searched the site without a warrant
Evidence collected from the illegal search was used to convict Weeks of transporting lottery tickets through the mail
Weeks then petitioned for the return of his possessions which were seized
Frame the Issue
Legal: Did the search and seizure of Weeks’ home violated
Weeks’ Fourth Amendment rights to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures
Public Policy:
Values in Conflict: Which value is more important, the government abiding by the Constitution or ignoring the
Constitution in order to enforce the law?
Practical:
Arguments
Weeks’ view: The 4th Amendment states that people are safe from unreasonable and searches without a warranty. And any evidence obtained from illegal an search is illegal. Federal officials should not be able to break the law in order to enforce the law.
United States’ view: An arrest was made in connection with a search, and further searches produced further evidence of illegal activity. The officers had growing evidence which suggested Weeks’ illegal activity. Evidence against Weeks proved his guilt and he should be punished.
Decision
The Court‘s unanimous decision was to overturn Weeks's conviction. The Court declared the evidence illegally gained and ordered the evidence be excluded in the future from any federal court
The Court established the Exclusionary Rule, which excludes any illegally obtained evidence from any unreasonable search or seizure, improper self-incriminatory statements, situations where defendants’ Sixth Amendment right to counsel to be used in court