Class Notes (1,100,000)
US (490,000)
USC (800)
CRJU (100)
Lecture 3

CRJU 203 Lecture Notes - Lecture 3: Affidavit, Exclusionary Rule, Larceny

Criminology and Criminal Justice
Course Code
CRJU 203
Theresa Clement

This preview shows half of the first page. to view the full 3 pages of the document.
CRJU 203
Mapp vs. Ohio 1961 (Mrs. Mapp owned house and rented out rooms in house. Police get tip of
suspected bomber. Come without a search warrant. Officers rush house and wave a piece of paper as
though it was a search warrant. She grabs (fake)search warrant and puts it down bra. They grab it from
her bra. Find no evidence of bomber. Found a trunk of drawn naked pictures, and charge her with
possession of obscene materials. Police then say on stand that they didn’t have warrant. Lawyer then
makes motion to exclude evidence because of unlawful search. However, judge lets pictures into trial
anyways because exclusionary rule at that time only applied to federal actors. (not state law
enforcement). Mrs. Mapp loses and appeals to supreme court. Take it up on first amendment rights of
free speech (right to pictures) and throw in that it violated 4th amendment right. Supreme court latches
on to search issue. Exclusionary rule is now part of the 4th amendment and now applies to states and
state actors. “Nothing will destroy a government more quickly than a failure to abide by our own laws.
“Exclusionary rule is the only deterrent to illegal police activity
If courts (meaning trial courts) allow illegal evidence into courts, judges are allowing illegal activities and
being accomplices.
Illegally obtained evidence can be used to impeach defendant credibility if they testify. Ex. Defendant is
charged with larceny and while on stand (police illegally searched and found weed, but is suppressed)
blurts out he’s never seen drug in his life. Then they are allowed to bring it in to impeach his credibility
(shows he is a liar)
If police violate an individual right on a good faith reliance on a search warrant that is signed by a
magistrate and later on the search warrant proves to be defected (no probable cause), then the items
they seize will be suppressed. If search warrant is not completed properly then
If there is a search warrant that turns out to be defected, then those goods should be admissible
because law enforcement did not make that error. Law enforcement must act reasonably on that search
warrant. Error on search warrant must be a close call mistake (nothing obviously missing) then goods
allowed in trial.
Another way illegally seized evidence. If police violate a person’s rights in good faith rights on a statue
that allows them to search. Then the items they seize the items will not be admissible from trial. Ex. (city
of Columbia allows law enforcement to search any house on Wednesday before noon. Law enforcement
searches finds weed. When they get to trial lawyer argues that law is unconstitutional. The weed found
is still used as evidence because law enforcements actions were not intentional, but acting on good
Each of these good faiths exception is not based on law enforcement judgements
Basic rule of law. A party must have a real stake in controversy in order to bring about a lawsuit.
Who has standing (stake in controversy) to object a 4th amendment violation. Not everybody does.
There has to be some connection between property searched or seized to make a connection that 4th
amendment rights were violated. (no privacy within someone else’s house (my weed in someone’s
find more resources at
find more resources at
You're Reading a Preview

Unlock to view full version