The Court concluded that
the informant’s recitation of detailed facts
, though relating to innocent activities, when corroborated by observation by police officers, afforded probable cause to believe that respondents had drugs in their possession; therefore, the evidence obtained should not be suppressed.
Who won in Illinois v gates?
United States. In essence, the affidavit did not provide enough evidence to establish probable cause, which led to the exclusion of evidence obtained on the basis of that warrant. This ruling was
upheld by both the Illinois Appellate Courts and the Supreme Court of Illinois
.
What did the US Supreme Court set forth in Illinois v gates?
In a 7 to 3 decision delivered by Justice William Rehnquist, the Supreme Court ruled that
the anonymous letter and affidavit could be used to establish probable cause to issue a search warrant
. The Gates’ constitutional rights had not been violated.
Who was involved in the Illinois v Gates case?
Facts of the case
The Bloomingdale, Illinois Police Department received an anonymous tip that
Lance and Susan Gates
were selling drugs out of their home.
Why is Aguilar v Texas important?
Texas, 378 U.S. 108 (1964), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that “[
a]lthough an affidavit supporting a search warrant may be based on hearsay information and need not reflect the direct personal observations of the affiant
, the magistrate must be informed of some of the underlying …
What is the significance of Illinois v gates?
In its holding,
the Court majority dismantled the entire Aguilar-Spinelli framework of analysis for determining probable cause in issuing warrants stemming from informant information
. In its decision, the Court indicated preference for warrants issued under the terms of U.S. v. Ventresca.
What are the two prongs of the two prong test?
The two-pronged test
maintains that a warrant cannot be issued on an informant’s tip unless the officers state that the reasons
that led them to believe the informant are credible or that the information is reliable on this particular occasion and unless affiants state the reasons that led them to conclude that the …
What is the exclusionary rule?
The exclusionary rule
prevents the government from using most evidence gathered in violation of the United States Constitution
. The decision in Mapp v. Ohio established that the exclusionary rule applies to evidence gained from an unreasonable search or seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
Which amendment protects citizens from unwarranted searches and seizures?
The Constitution, through
the Fourth Amendment
, protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. The Fourth Amendment, however, is not a guarantee against all searches and seizures, but only those that are deemed unreasonable under the law.
What is the two pronged test for reasonable expectation of privacy?
Justice Harlan, concurring, formulated a two pronged test for determining whether the privacy interest is paramount:
first that a person have exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy and, second, that the expectation be one that society is prepared to recognize as ‘reasonable.
Who won the Florida v Jardines case?
On March 26, 2013, by a 5-4 margin, the Supreme Court held that the government’s use of trained police dogs to investigate the home and its immediate surroundings is a “search” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, thus affirming
the Florida Supreme Court
.
What does exigent circumstances mean?
Exigent circumstances – “
circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to believe
that entry (or other relevant prompt action) was necessary to prevent physical harm to the officers or other persons, the destruction of relevant evidence, the escape of the suspect, or some other consequence improperly frustrating …
What is Draper V?
The Supreme Court held that
evidence required to show probable cause
is not held to the same standard as evidence required to prove guilt in trial. Despite the fact that information Marsh gained from Hereford would be inadmissible at trial as hearsay, it may still be relied on as probable cause for a search and arrest.
What is the holding in Briggs v Malley 1986 )?
In Malley v. Briggs, the U.S. Supreme Court held that
police officers are only entitled to qualified immunity in civil suits concerning the issuance of an unconstitutional arrest warrant
and the standard of review in such cases is to be the objective reasonableness test.
When information is used from a criminal informant the name of the informant?
When information is used from a criminal informant, the name of the informant:
need not be disclosed if his or her credibility is otherwise satisfactorily established
. Which of the following is the most effective way to assess reliability of a criminal informant’s information?
Which of the following is an element of a seizure?
Two elements must be present to constitute a seizure of a person. First,
there must be a show of authority by the police officer
. Presence of handcuffs or weapons, the use of forceful language, and physical contact are each strong indicators of authority. Second, the person being seized must submit to the authority.
