POLS 4720E Chapter Notes - Chapter 4: Police Misconduct, Harry Blackmun, Harrya
29 Jun 2018
School
Department
Course
Professor
I. Weeks v US (1914)
A. Facts — Police entered the home of Fremont Weeks and seized papers which were used
to convict him of transporting lottery tickets through the mail. This was done without a
search warrant. Weeks took action against the police and petitioned for the return of his
private possessions.
B. Question — Did the search and seizure of Weeks' home violate the Fourth Amendment?
C. Decision — Unanimous decision for Weeks
D. Summary — In a unanimous decision, the Court held that the seizure of items from
Weeks' residence directly violated his constitutional rights. The Court also held that the
government's refusal to return Weeks' possessions violated the Fourth Amendment. To
allow private documents to be seized and then held as evidence against citizens would
have meant that the protection of the Fourth Amendment declaring the right to be secure
against such searches and seizures would be of no value whatsoever. This was the first
application of what eventually became known as the "exclusionary rule."
II. Hudson v. Michigan (2005)
A. Facts — Booker T. Hudson was convicted of drug and firearm possession in state court
after police found cocaine and a gun in his home. The police had a search warrant, but
failed to follow the Fourth Amendment "knock and announce" rule which requires police
officers to wait 20-30 seconds after knocking and announcing their presence before they
enter the home. The trial judge ruled that the evidence found in the home could therefore
not be used, but the Michigan Court of Appeals reversed based on two Michigan
Supreme Court cases that created an exception to the suppression of evidence when the
evidence in question would have inevitably been found.
B. Question — Does the general rule excluding evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth
Amendment apply to the "knock-and-announce" rule?
C. Decision — 5-4 Decision — NO
D. Summary — No. In a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled that evidence need not be excluded
when police violate the "knock-and-announce" rule. The opinion by Justice Scalia
reaffirmed the validity of both the knock-and-announce rule and the "exclusionary rule"
for evidence obtained by police in most cases of Fourth Amendment violation. However,
the majority held that the exclusionary rule could not be invoked for evidence obtained
after a knock-and-announce violation, because the interests violated by the abrupt entry
of the police "have nothing to do with the seizure of the evidence." Justice Scalia wrote
that the knock-and-announce rule was meant to prevent violence, property-damage, and
impositions on privacy, not to prevent police from conducting a search for which they
have a valid warrant. The Court also found that the social costs of the exclusionary rule
as applied to the knock-and-announce rule outweighed any possible "deterrence
benefits," and that alternative measures such as civil suits and internal police discipline
could adequately deter violations. Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a dissenting opinion, and
was joined by Justices Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg. The dissent noted the Court's long
history of upholding the exclusionary rule and doubted that the majority's cited
precedents supported its conclusion. The dissent also expressed doubt that knock-and-
announce violations could be deterred without excluding the evidence obtained from the
searches.
III. Mapp v. Ohio (1961)
A. Facts — Dollree Mapp was convicted of possessing obscene materials after an
admittedly illegal police search of her home for a fugitive. She appealed her conviction
on the basis of freedom of expression.
B. Question — Were the confiscated materials protected by the First Amendment?
C. Decision — 6-3 Decision for Dollree Mapp
D. Summary — In an opinion authored by Justice Tom C. Clark, the majority brushed aside
the First Amendment issue and declared that all evidence obtained by searches and
seizures in violation of the Fourth Amendment is inadmissible in a state court. The
decision launched the Court on a troubled course of determining how and when to apply
the exclusionary rule.
IV. Murray v. US (1987)
A. Facts — On April 6, 1983, federal law enforcement agents tailing Michael F. Murray and
James D. Carter for suspicion of illegal drug activities saw the two drive large vehicles
into a warehouse in South Boston. When Murray and Carter left, the agents saw a tractor-
trailer rig and a large container. The agents arrested Murray and Carter and lawfully
seized their vehicles, which contained marijuana. Several agents then returned to the
warehouse, forced entry without a search warrant, and found numerous wrapped bales of
what was later confirmed to be marijuana. The agents did not disturb the bales and kept
the warehouse under surveillance until they obtained a search warrant. In applying for
the search warrant, the agents did not mention the unwarranted entry or the information
they had obtained. Approximately eight hours later, the agents obtained the warrant,
entered the wBarehouse, and seized the bales along with the notebooks indicating the
destinations of the marijuana. Before the trial, Murray and Carter moved to suppress the
evidence discovered in the warehouse and argued that the warrant was invalid because it
was based on information obtained in the previous unwarranted entry. The district court
denied the motion and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed.
B. Question — Does the Fourth Amendment require the suppression of evidence viewed in
plain sight prior to an illegal entry that was later discovered in the course of a properly
warranted search?
C. Decision — 4-3 Decision — NO
D. Summary — No. Justice Antonin Scalia delivered the opinion of the 4-3 plurality. The
Court held that evidence that would be excluded under the Fourth Amendment is
admissible if it comes from an independent source. If the police obtained information
unlawfully but the evidence in question comes from an untainted source, it is still
admissible. Because the officers in this case obtained a lawful warrant without relying on
the information they obtained illegally, the evidence seized in the warranted entry can be
considered to have come from an independent source and therefore not subject to
exclusion. Justice Thurgood Marshall wrote a dissenting opinion where he argued that
the independent source exception is limited to cases in which the evidence in question
stemmed from a wholly independent source. He argued that courts must keep in mind the
Document Summary
Weeks v us (1914, facts police entered the home of fremont weeks and seized papers which were used to convict him of transporting lottery tickets through the mail. The court also held that the government"s refusal to return weeks" possessions violated the fourth amendment. This was the first application of what eventually became known as the "exclusionary rule. " Hudson v. michigan (2005: facts booker t. hudson was convicted of drug and firearm possession in state court after police found cocaine and a gun in his home. The police had a search warrant, but failed to follow the fourth amendment "knock and announce" rule which requires police officers to wait 20-30 seconds after knocking and announcing their presence before they enter the home. The trial judge ruled that the evidence found in the home could therefore not be used, but the michigan court of appeals reversed based on two michigan.
