Due Process and Search and Seizure- 4 th and 14 th Amendments

Due Process and Search Due Process and Search and Seizure- 4and Seizure- 4thth and 14 and 14thth

AmendmentsAmendments

Selective IncorporationSelective Incorporation of the Bill of Rights is the legal

doctrine by which portions of the U.S. Bill of Rights are

applied to the states through the Due Process Clause of the

Fourteenth Amendment.

The Fourth AmendmentThe Fourth Amendment

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The first part provides protection against

unreasonable searches and seizures.

The second part of the amendment provides for the

proper issue of specific warrants

WeeksWeeks v. v. United United StatesStates (1914) established the exclusionary ruleexclusionary rule barring the admission of illegally obtained evidence in federal courts.

What to do with illegally What to do with illegally obtained evidence?obtained evidence?

• Do not allow evidence obtained illegally

• Allow evidence and punish the officer for collecting evidence improperly

Mapp v. Ohio (1961)Mapp v. Ohio (1961)

Sgt. Carl Delau, a vice cop in plainclothes, rang the buzzer of Mapp's second story home. The woman

looked out a window.

"Let Me In, Dollree""Let Me In, Dollree"

The Court declared that "all evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Constitution is, by [the Fourth Amendment], inadmissible in a

state court."

Mapp v. Ohio (1961)Mapp v. Ohio (1961)

“The Exclusionary Rule” is selectively incorporated.

As a result, states could not use evidence obtained illegally, to convict an individual.

Searches and Seizures without WarrantsSearches and Seizures without Warrants

•Things in “Plain View”

•Things in “Open Fields”

•Things in “Immediate Control”once an arrest has been made

•Voluntary Consent to Search ***

• “Protective Sweep Search”

• Emergencies “Exigent circumstances”

Terry v. Ohio (1968)Terry v. Ohio (1968)

Nix v. Williams Nix v. Williams (1984)(1984)

SCOTUS institutes the “inevitable discovery”

exception.

U.S. v. Leon (1984)U.S. v. Leon (1984)

SCOTUS institutes the “good-faith” exception.

The “MappMapp Rule Rule” has since been modified by decisions of the

Burger Court, including NixNix v. v. WilliamsWilliams, 1984 (inevitable inevitable

discovery rulediscovery rule), and U.S.U.S. v. v. LeonLeon, 1984 (“good faith” exception“good faith” exception), so the exclusionary rule is no longer as absolute as when first handed

down in Mapp.

Search and Seizure and SchoolSearch and Seizure and School

New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985)New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985)

SCOTUS institutes “reasonable suspicion” rule as opposed to “probable

cause.”

Vernonia School District v. Vernonia School District v. Acton (1995)Acton (1995)

SCOTUS upheld mandatory suspicionless

drug testing for all students participating

in athletics.

Board of Education v. Earls Board of Education v. Earls (2002)(2002)

SCOTUS upheld

mandatory suspicionless drug testing

for all students.

““Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine”Doctrine”