LEGAL

RESEARCH

Use of Force
- Generally
The Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel
- Attachment of Right
- Confrontation Clause
- Crime Specfific
  - Texas v. Cobb
  - Maine v. Moulton
- Critical Stages - Lineups
  - United States v. Wade
  - Gilbert v. California
- Critical Stages - Questioning
- Right to Counsel
  - Gideon v. Wainwright
  - Massiah v. United States
The Fourth Amendment: What is a Search?
- Abandoned Property
  - Abel v. United States
  - California v. Greenwood
- Applies to Government Activities Only
- Foreign Searches
  - United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez
- Generally
- Open Fields & Curtilage
- Private Intrusions
  - Walter v. United States
  - United States v. Jacobsen
- Reasonable Expectation of Privacy
- Third Party Control
The Forth Amendment: What is a Seizure?
- Arrests-Arrest Warrants
- Arrests-Generally
  - Atwater v. City of Lago Vista
- Arrests-Premises
- Arrests-Third Party Premises
  - Pembaur v. Cincinnati
  - Steagald v. United States
- Generally
- Stops-Generally
- Stops-Terry/Traffic Stops
The Fifth Amendment
- Compelled
- Due Process
- Fourth Amendement Violations
- Holder of the Privelege
- Immunity
- Introductory Issues
- Miranda - Custody
- Miranda - Generally
- Miranda - Goverment Employees
- Miranda - Interrogation
  - Pennsylvania v. Muniz
  - Rhode Island v. Innis
- Miranda - Police
  - Arizona v. Mauro
  - Illinois v. Perkins
- Miranda - Right to Counsel
- Miranda - Right to Silence
- Miranda - Waiver
- Miranda Exceptions
  - New York v. Quarles
  - Harris v. New York
- Testimonial Evidence
- Voluntary
Search Warrants
- Establishing P.C. in Affidavit
- Neutral and Detached Magistrate
  - Lo-Ji Sales, Inc. v. New York
  - Connelly v. Georgia
- Probable Cause - Required
  - Winston v. Lee
  - Byars v. United States
- Serving the Warrant - Knock and Announce
- Serving the Warrant - Person at the Premises
- Serving the Warrant - Related Issues
- With Particularity
Search Warrant Exceptions - P.C. Not Needed
- Consent
- Frisk
- Inspections - Border Inspections
  - United States v. Flores-Montano
  - United States v. Ramsey
- Inspections - Parolees
  - Samson v. California
  - United States v. Knights
- Inspections - Special Needs
- Inspections - Structures
- Inspections - Vehicles
- Inventories
- Search Incident to Arrest
  - United States v. Chadwick
- Search Incident to Arrest - Alcohol Test
  - Birchfield v. North Dakota
- Search Incident to Arrest - Cell Phones
  - Riley v. California
- Search Incident to Arrest - Persons
- Search Incident to Arrest - Premises
- Search Incident to Arrest - Vehicles
Search Warrant Exceptions - P.C. Needed
- Destruction of Evidence
- Emergency Scenes
- Hot Pursuit
- Mobile Vehicles
- Plain View
Related Search and Seizure Issues
- Officer's Intent
- Other Issues
Other Cases
- Generally
Liability
- Brady Material
- Generally
Levels of Suspicion
- Probable Cause
- Reasonable Suspicion
Fourth Amendment - Exclusionary Rule
- Exceptions - Attenuation
  - Utah v. Strieff
- Exceptions - Good Faith Exceptions
- Exceptions - Impeachement
- Exceptions - Independent Source
  - Murray v. United States
- Exceptions - Inevitable Discovery
  - Nix v. Williams
- Exceptions - No Standing to Object
- Exceptions - Other Hearings
  - Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole v. Scott
  - United States v. Calandra
- Fruit of the Poisonus Tree
- Origins

Origins

Elkins v. United States

Facts

State officers, having received information that the defendants possessed obscene motion pictures, obtained a search warrant for the defendant’s house. The officers did not find any obscene pictures but they found various paraphernalia they believed was used to make illegal wiretaps. A state court held that the search was illegal under state law. During these state proceedings, federal officers, acting under a federal search warrant, obtained the items in state custody. Shortly after that, state officials abandoned their case and federal agents obtained a federal indictment.

Issue

Whether evidence obtained because of an unreasonable search and seizure by state officers, without involvement of federal officers, is admissible in a federal criminal trial?

Held

No. Evidence obtained because of an unreasonable search and seizure by state officers is inadmissible in a federal criminal trial.

Discussion

The Supreme Court created the exclusionary rule to prevent, not repair. Its purpose is to deter unreasonable activity – to compel respect for the constitutional guaranty to be free from unreasonable searches in the only effective way – by removing the incentive to disregard it. Evidence obtained by state officers during a search that, if conducted by federal officers, would have violated the Fourth Amendment, is inadmissible in a federal criminal trial.

Citation

364 U.S. 206, 80 S. Ct. 1437 (1960)

LEGAL

Use of Force

Generally

The Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel

Attachment of Right

Confrontation Clause

Crime Specfific

Critical Stages - Lineups

Critical Stages - Questioning

Right to Counsel

The Fourth Amendment: What is a Search?

Abandoned Property

Applies to Government Activities Only

Foreign Searches

Generally

Open Fields & Curtilage

Private Intrusions

Reasonable Expectation of Privacy

Third Party Control

The Forth Amendment: What is a Seizure?

Arrests-Arrest Warrants

Arrests-Generally

Arrests-Premises

Arrests-Third Party Premises

Generally

Stops-Generally

Stops-Terry/Traffic Stops

The Fifth Amendment

Compelled

Due Process

Fourth Amendement Violations

Holder of the Privelege