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

Weeks v. United States

Facts

Local police officers arrested the defendant without a warrant at his place of employment. Other officers went to his home. After a neighbor told the officers where the defendant secreted a key, they entered the house. The officers searched and found evidence of gambling paraphernalia that they turned over to the U.S. Marshal. Later that day, the Marshal returned to the house and found additional evidence. Neither the Marshal nor the local officers had a search warrant. The government used this evidence to convict the defendant of using the mails to transport gambling paraphernalia.

Issue

Whether the evidence seized by the U.S. Marshal was admissible?

Held

No. As the evidence was obtained through unconstitutional means, it was not admissible.

Discussion

Discussion An official of the United States seized the evidence acting under the color of office in direct violation of the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court held the federal government could not use unreasonably obtained evidence in a federal courtroom. However, the fruit of the first search conducted by the state officers was admissible. “As the Fourth Amendment is not directed to the individual misconduct of such officials [state and local police officers],” the fruits of the state search were admissible in a federal trial.

NOTE: The Fourth Amendment would not be completely applicable to state actions until the Mapp v. Ohio decision in 1961.

Citation

232 U.S. 383, 34 S. Ct. 341 (1914)

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