Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009), was a United States Supreme Court decision holding that the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution requires law enforcement officers to demonstrate an actual and continuing threat to their safety posed by an arrestee, or a need to preserve evidence related to the crime of arrest ...
What did the court decide in the case of Arizona v Evans?
Evans, 514 U.S. 1 (1995), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court instituted an exclusionary rule exception allowing evidence obtained through a warrantless search to be valid when a police record erroneously indicates the existence of an outstanding warrant due to negligent conduct of a Clerk of ...
What is the issue in Knowles v Iowa?
Iowa, 525 U.S. 113 (1998), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court which ruled that the Fourth Amendment prohibits a police officer from further searching a vehicle which was stopped for a minor traffic offense once the officer has written a citation for the offense .
What is the Belton rule?
Rule: When a policeman has made a lawful custodial arrest of the occupant of an automobile, he may, as a contemporaneous incident of that arrest, search the passenger compartment of that automobile.
What did the court say about Michigan vs long?
The Michigan Supreme Court reversed Long’s conviction for possession of marijuana on the basis that the search of his vehicle was impermissible under the federal and state constitutions .
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.
What was Massachusetts v Sheppard?
On appeal to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Sheppard successfully argued that the trial judge should have suppressed the evidence since no “good-faith exception” existed for admitting evidence obtained on a faulty warrant.
What was the ruling in United States v Chadwick?
Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1 (1977), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that, absent exigency, the warrantless search of double-locked luggage just placed in the trunk of a parked vehicle is a violation of the Fourth Amendment and not justified under the automobile exception .
What is Maryland v Wilson?
Wilson, 519 U.S. 408 (1997) After stopping a speeding car in which respondent Wilson was a passenger, a Maryland state trooper ordered Wilson out of the car upon noticing his apparent nervousness. When Wilson exited, a quantity of cocaine fell to the ground.
What is the holding in Michigan v Long 463 US 1032 1983 )?
Long, 463 U.S. 1032 (1983), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court that extended Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) to allow searches of car compartments during a stop with reasonable suspicion .
What is the adequate and independent state grounds doctrine?
The adequate and independent state ground doctrine states that when a litigant petitions the U.S. Supreme Court to review the judgment of a state court which rests upon both federal and non-federal (state) law , the U.S. Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction over the case if the state ground is (1) “adequate” to ...
How long is the Michigan?
| Michigan | Dimensions | • Length 456 mi (734 km) | • Width 386 mi (621 km) | Elevation 900 ft (270 m) |
|---|
What happens if evidence is obtained illegally?
Independent Source Doctrine: If police obtain evidence illegally, but also obtain the same evidence through an independent, legal means, the evidence is admissible . ... If a defendant was illegally stopped, but a valid outstanding arrest warrant is later discovered, evidence obtained during the stop may be admissible.
What are the pros and cons of the exclusionary rule?
- It requires the lawmakers to follow the law. ...
- It requires probable cause. ...
- It limits the power of the government. ...
- It assumes innocence before guilt. ...
- It reduces the risks of manufactured evidence. ...
- It is a rule that has no effect on the innocent.
What did the Supreme Court rule in Massachusetts vs Sheppard?
At a pretrial suppression hearing, the trial judge ruled that notwithstanding the warrant was defective under the Fourth Amendment in that it did not particularly describe the items to be seized , the incriminating evidence could be admitted because the police had acted in good faith in executing what they reasonably ...
