Class Notes (1,100,000)
US (480,000)
USC (800)
CRJU (100)
Lecture 2

CRJU 203 Lecture Notes - Lecture 2: Search Warrant, Exclusionary Rule

Criminology and Criminal Justice
Course Code
CRJU 203
Theresa Clement

This preview shows half of the first page. to view the full 2 pages of the document.
Crju 203
Chapter 1 continued
4th amendement Constitution is trying to protect our individual freedom, freedom of privacy, property,
seizures (taking your stuff). Protect us so we can feel secure in our homes from excess government,
excess control of law enforcement.
Search (looking) vs. Seizure (taking). Presumed unreasonable without a search warrant. Search warrant
has to have probable cause. Probable cause is facts that would lead a prudent (reasonable) person to
believe that sizeable items are in a particular place. Probable cause can be established by hearsay or an
informant (witness). Doesn’t have to be a cop that sees it. (Someone saw you smoking in your
apartment. Your friend tells the cops. They have probable cause and could get a warrant)
Sometimes evidence is seized illegally without a search warrant. These illegal searches violate 4th
amendment. Common law vs now. Illegally seized items can now possibly be excluded from trial
because your rights were violated. The Supreme Court has interpreted this from the 4th amendment and
came up with the exclusionary rule (evidence seized illegally by government officers cannot be
introduced by the prosecution in a criminal trial to prove the defendant’s guilt) has to be evidenced
that was illegally seized. Something has to be seized and seized illegally for exclusionary rule. This can
apply to any law enforcement officer. The defense can introduce this evidence in trial. A person that
gives information and works with gov. becomes a gov. official. Can be introduced for another reason just
not to prove guilt! If they don’t seize something from the illegal search and come back with a warrant it
could count as a legal seizure.
Even though this evidence is actual proof of guilt we can’t use it because we don’t want law
enforcement to be allowed to violate the law. This does not mean that the case is dismissed unless the
only issue is created based off the illegal seized item.
Exclusionary rule only applies to government agent (police, informants, undercover cop, public school
teachers) Will not protect you if a friend/girlfriend/boyfriend turns it over to law enforcement, so that
would then allow this evidence to be used if it can be traced back to you. The said boyfriend could then
sue for stealing, but be charged with possession in a criminal court. If the state that a security guard
works in allows police power then they are considered gov. agent, but if where they work they don’t
have gov. power they are not considered a gov. agent. Allows off duty officers the right to arrest.
Criminal court vs. civil court (can’t be used in criminal court)^
Fruit of the poisonous tree: did some kind of illegal act that did not produce evidence but got
information that lead them to guilty evidence.
Found a map in someone’s house. Follows map to whereabouts and find guilty evidence. Guilty evidence
found will be suppressed as fruit of the poisonous tree
If when searching for a specified item and then start searching into encloures that would not fit the
specified item it is demed illegal seizure. (looking for shotgun found marijuana in a little jewelry box)
Exceptions to fruit of the poisonous tree
find more resources at
find more resources at
You're Reading a Preview

Unlock to view full version