query: which u.s. supreme court case required states to use the exclusionary rule

pos: Exclusionary rule cases in the state of California. By 1960, 22 states had adopted the rule without substantial qualifications: California, Delaware, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Washington, Texas, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming. Michigan also had an exclusionary rule, but with limitations for some narcotics and firearms evidence. In Alabama, Maryland, and South Dakota, the exclusionary rule applied in some situations. It was not until "Mapp v. Ohio" in 1961 that the exclusionary rule was also held to be binding on the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees due process. Up until

pos: United States v. Janis argued that the exclusionary rule should be supreme since it is such a vital concept of the Fourth amendment. They felt the court continued to exhibit a “business of slow strangulation of the rule.” Justice Stewart’s dissent argued a similar point, just in a different way. He cited "Elkins v. United States", in which the Supreme Court ditched the “silver platter doctrine”. This doctrine was an aspect of the exclusionary rule after it was created, but before the landmark case of "Mapp v. Ohio", in which illegally seized evidence by a state officer could be used in a federal civil

pos: Weeks v. United States Weeks v. United States Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 (1914), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court unanimously held that the warrantless seizure of items from a private residence constitutes a violation of the Fourth Amendment. It also prevented local officers from securing evidence by means prohibited under the federal exclusionary rule and giving it to their federal colleagues. It was not until the case of "Mapp v. Ohio", 367 U.S. 643 (1961), that the exclusionary rule was deemed to apply to state courts as well. On December 21, 1911, Fremont Weeks, the plaintiff

pos: Herring v. United States and "Mapp v. Ohio" (1961), the Supreme Court created the exclusionary rule, which generally operates to suppress - i.e. prevent the introduction at trial of - evidence obtained in violation of Constitutional rights. "Suppression of evidence, however, has always been [the court's] last resort, not [its] first impulse. The exclusionary rule generates substantial social costs, which sometimes include setting the guilty free and the dangerous at large." In "United States v. Leon", the Supreme Court clarified that the exclusionary rule "operates as a judicially created remedy designed to safeguard Fourth Amendment rights generally through its deterrent effect, rather than a

pos: Aguilar–Spinelli test the case of "Weeks v. United States", 232 U.S. 383 (1914), the Supreme Court adopted the "exclusionary rule". This rule declared that, in most circumstances, evidence obtained through an illegal search and seizure could not be used as admissible evidence in a criminal trial. (This decision adopted the rule only on the federal level. It was not until "Mapp v. Ohio", 367 U.S. 643 (1961), that the exclusionary rule was held to be binding on the states through the doctrine of selective incorporation.) Subsequently, the defense in many criminal trials attempted to prove that a search warrant was invalid, thus

pos: Admissible evidence United States and, to an extent, Australia) proscribe the prosecution from exploiting evidence obtained in violation of constitutional law, thereby rendering relevant evidence inadmissible. This rule of evidence is called the exclusionary rule. In the United States this was effectuated federally in 1914 under the Supreme Court case "Weeks v. United States" and incorporated against the states in 1961 in the case "Mapp v. Ohio", both of which involving law enforcement conducting warrantless searches of the petitioners' homes, with incriminating evidence being descried inside them. For evidence to be admissible, it must tend to prove or disprove some fact at

pos: Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution "Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States" (1920) and "Nardone v. United States" (1939), the Court ruled that leads or other evidence resulting from illegally obtained evidence are also inadmissible in trials. Justice Felix Frankfurter described this secondary evidence in the "Nardone" decision as the "fruit of the poisonous tree". The Supreme Court rejected incorporating the exclusionary rule by way of the Fourteenth Amendment in "Wolf v. Colorado" (1949), but "Wolf" was explicitly overruled in "Mapp v. Ohio" (1961), making the Fourth Amendment (including the exclusionary rule) applicable in state proceedings. The exclusionary rule and its effectiveness have often been controversial,

pos: Wolf v. Colorado rule as part of the Fourth Amendment in large part because the states which had rejected the Weeks Doctrine (the exclusionary rule) had not left the right to privacy without other means of protection (i.e. the States had their own rules to deter police officers from conducting warrantless and unreasonable searches and seizures). However, because most of the states' rules proved to be ineffective in deterrence, the Court overruled Wolf in "Mapp v. Ohio", 367 U.S. 643 (1961). This landmark case made the exclusionary rule enforceable against the states through the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the

pos: Mapp v. Ohio the Ohio statute concerning obscenity, under which Mapp had been convicted, violated the First Amendment. The three dissenting Justices would have adhered to the Court's contrary prior holding in "Wolf v. Colorado", 338 U.S. 25 (1949), which declined to apply the exclusionary rule to the states. She was convicted in 1999 Mapp v. Ohio Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961), was a landmark case in criminal procedure, in which the United States Supreme Court decided that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment, which protects against "unreasonable searches and seizures," may not be used in state law criminal

pos: Olmstead v. United States case of "Weeks v. United States", the Court held unanimously that illegal seizure of items from a private residence was a violation of the Fourth Amendment, and established the exclusionary rule that prohibits admission of illegally obtained evidence in federal courts. Because the Bill of Rights did not at the time extend to cover states, such a prohibition extended only to federal agents and covered only federal trials. It was not until the case of "Mapp v. Ohio" (1961) that the exclusionary rule was extended to state courts as well. The question here, then, was whether the recordings of wiretapped

pos: Marcus v. Search Warrant concluded. "Mass seizure in the fashion of this case was thus effected without any safeguards to protect legitimate expression. The judgment of the Missouri Supreme Court sustaining the condemnation of the 100 publications therefore cannot be sustained." Black's short concurrence emphasized the Fourteenth Amendment aspect of the holding, making the provisions of the Fourth Amendment fully applicable to the states as well as the federal government. He expressed that view again, citing dissents to that effect he had either written or joined. He also felt the Court's then-recent holding in "Mapp v. Ohio" extending the exclusionary rule to state prosecutions

pos: Earl Warren "Silver Platter Doctrine," a loophole to the exclusionary rule that had allowed federal officials to use evidence that had been illegally gathered by state officials. The following year, in "Mapp v. Ohio", the Court held that the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on "unreasonable searches and seizures" applied to state officials. Warren wrote the majority opinion in "Terry v. Ohio", a 1968 case in which the Court established that a police officer can frisk a criminal suspect if they have a reasonable suspicion that the suspect is committing or is about to commit a crime. In the 1962 case of "Gideon v.

neg: Exclusionary rule "victimless" crime, such as illegal gambling or narcotics violations. In 1920, the U.S. Supreme Court adopted the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine in the case of "Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States". The Court stated that allowing evidence gathered as an indirect result of an unconstitutional search and seizure "reduces the Fourth Amendment to a form of words". "Wolf v. Colorado" ruled that states were not required to adopt the exclusionary rule. Despite the ruling, some states adopted the exclusionary rule. In 1955, the Supreme Court of California ruled in "People v. Cahan" that the exclusionary rule applied for

neg: Arizona v. Evans Court because it rested on an independent and adequate ground in Arizona law — its statute dealing with good-faith reliance on the validity of warrants. The Supreme Court's interference would therefore impede on Arizona's ability to act as a laboratory for legal innovations. The majority observed that part of the Arizona Supreme Court's decision did in fact rest on the exclusionary rule, so that the Court had jurisdiction to review the case. Arizona v. Evans Arizona v. Evans, 514 U.S. 1 (1995), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court instituted an exclusionary rule exception allowing evidence

neg: Exclusionary rule "Mapp", the exclusionary rule had been rejected by most states. In 2016, Utah v. Strieff dealt with the exclusionary rule and outstanding warrants and was viewed to be generally favorable towards police. The exclusionary rule does not apply in a civil case, in a grand jury proceeding, or in a parole revocation hearing. Even in a criminal case, the exclusionary rule does not simply bar the introduction of all evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth, Fifth, or Sixth Amendment. In "Hudson v. Michigan", Justice Scalia wrote for the U.S. Supreme Court: Limitations on the exclusionary rule have included the

neg: Nix v. Williams in good faith, only that the evidence would have inevitably been found despite the violation. Williams' conviction was thereby upheld. Brennan's dissent agreed that an inevitable discovery exception existed, but argued that the burden of proof should be strengthened from the "preponderance of the evidence" required by the majority opinion to "clear and convincing evidence". Nix v. Williams Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (1984), was a U.S. Supreme Court case that created an "inevitable discovery" exception to the exclusionary rule. The exclusionary rule makes most evidence gathered through violations of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which

neg: Wolf v. Colorado Wolf v. Colorado Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25 (1949), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held 6-3 that, while the Fourth Amendment was applicable to the states, the exclusionary rule was not a necessary ingredient of the Fourth Amendment's right against warrantless and unreasonable searches and seizures. In "Weeks v. United States", 232 U.S. 383 (1914), the Court held that as a matter of judicial implication the exclusionary rule was enforceable in federal courts but not derived from the explicit requirements of the Fourth Amendment. The "Wolf" Court decided not to incorporate the exclusionary

neg: Exclusionary rule the 1980s, the exclusionary rule remained controversial and was strongly opposed by President Ronald Reagan. But, some opponents began seeking to have the rule modified, rather than abolished altogether. The case, "Illinois v. Gates", before the Supreme Court brought the exclusionary rule for reconsideration. The Supreme Court also considered allowing exceptions for errors made by police in good faith. The Reagan administration also asked Congress to ease the rule. It has been proposed that the exclusionary rule be replaced with restitution to victims of police misconduct. A major criticism of the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule is that it allegedly defies

neg: No-knock warrant the execution of the warrant. English common law has required law enforcement to knock-and-announce since at least "Semayne's case" (1604), and in "Miller v. United States" (1958), the Supreme Court of the United States recognized that police must give notice before making a forced entry. In the U.S. federal criminal law, the rule generally requiring knock-and-announce is codified at 18 U.S.C § 3109. However, in "Wilson v. Arkansas" (1995) the Court created an exception to prevent the destruction of evidence and in "Hudson v. Michigan" (2006) the Court, by a 5-4 vote, held the exclusionary rule does not require the

neg: Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution blocked the state courts from expanding these protections further. Since "United States v. Calandra" (1974), the Supreme Court has repeatedly limited the exclusionary rule. The Court in "Calandra" ruled that grand juries may use illegally obtained evidence when questioning witnesses, because "the damage to that institution from the unprecedented extension of the exclusionary rule outweighs the benefit of any possible incremental deterrent effect." Explaining the purpose of the rule, the Court said that the rule "is a judicially created remedy designed to safeguard Fourth Amendment rights generally through its deterrent effect, rather than a personal constitutional right of the party

neg: Murray v. United States Murray v. United States Murray v. United States, 487 U.S. 533 (1988), was a United States Supreme Court decision that created the modern "independent source doctrine" exception to the exclusionary rule. The exclusionary rule makes most evidence gathered through violations of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution inadmissible in criminal trials as "fruit of the poisonous tree". In "Murray", the Court ruled that when officers conduct two searches, the first unlawful and the second lawful, evidence seized during the second search is admissible if the second search "is genuinely independent of [the] earlier one." The case arose out

neg: Nix v. Williams Nix v. Williams Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (1984), was a U.S. Supreme Court case that created an "inevitable discovery" exception to the exclusionary rule. The exclusionary rule makes most evidence gathered through violations of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which protects against unreasonable search and seizure, inadmissible in criminal trials as "fruit of the poisonous tree". In "Nix", the Court ruled that evidence that would inevitably have been discovered by law enforcement through legal means remained admissible. Robert Williams, an escaped mental patient, kidnapped and murdered ten-year-old Pamela Powers from a YMCA in Des Moines,

neg: Mapp v. Ohio couldn't use the books as evidence in the trial because they were found without a warrant and therefore illegally recovered. Mapp was the first to call upon this law, which created precedent for future cases. The U.S. Supreme Court voted 6-3 in favor of Mapp. The Court overturned the conviction, and five Justices held that the states were bound to exclude evidence seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment. This majority decision applied the exclusionary rule to the states. Justice Potter Stewart, concurring in the result, expressed "no view as to the merits of the" exclusionary rule, but concurred because

neg: Schmerber v. California United States", the Court held in 1949 that the exclusionary rule did not apply to the states. In "Rochin", the Court held that evidence obtained in a manner that "shocks the conscience" must be excluded in criminal prosecutions but the court declined to incorporate a broad exclusionary rule for all Fourth Amendment violations. By the middle of the twentieth century, many state courts had crafted their own exclusionary rules. In 1955, the California Supreme Court ruled in "People v. Cahan" that the Fourth Amendment's exclusionary rule applied in California because it was necessary to deter constitutional violations by law enforcement.

neg: Semayne's case California" (1963), a divided Court discovered that the limitation was extended to the states by the US Constitution. However, in "Wilson v. Arkansas" (1995) the US Supreme Court created an exception to prevent the destruction of evidence and in "Hudson v. Michigan" (2006), it held in a 5-4 vote that the exclusionary rule does not require the suppression of evidence seized by police during an illegal force entry. Recently, police in the United States often give no notice before forced home entry during the widespread use of no-knock warrants. Semayne's case Semayne's Case (January 1st, 1604) 5 Coke Rep. 91,

neg: United States v. Leon The chief deterrent function of the rule is its tendency to promote institutional compliance with the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution. The good faith exception will encourage police to provide only the bare minimum necessary for securing a search warrant. Arguing the case for the respondent was former Los Angeles prosecutor and ESPN legal analyst Roger Cossack. United States v. Leon United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court established the "good faith" exception to the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule. On August 1981, police in Burbank, California received a

neg: United States v. Janis United States v. Janis United States v. Janis, 428 U.S. 433 (1976), was a Supreme Court Case that found Max Janis and Morris Levine guilty of illegal bookmaking activities in Los Angeles in a 5-3 ruling. The two were arrested for the crime in November 1968. Appealing on the grounds of unconstitutionally seized evidence, Janis and Levine were heard by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in 1973. The case was ultimately heard by the Supreme Court in 1975, and the two were found guilty in 1976. More importantly, the case established that the exclusionary rule does not apply to

neg: James v. Illinois "would frustrate rather than further the purposes underlying the exclusionary rule." James v. Illinois James v. Illinois, 493 U.S. 307 (1990), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court forbid the admission of evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment for the use of impeaching statements made by a defense witness. On August 30, 1982 a group of eight boys was confronted by another group of boys who demanded money. The group of eight refused and was fired upon, resulting in the death of one boy and injury to another. After police arrived on the scene

neg: Ybarra v. Illinois an encounter. Page 444 U. S. 108 Terry suggests an additional factor that courts must consider when confronting an allegedly illegal frisk for weapons. As this Court admitted in that case, "[t]he exclusionary rule has its limitations . . . as a tool of judicial control." 392 U.S. at 392 U. S. 13. Premised as that rule is on the hypothesis that police will avoid illegal searches if threatened with exclusion of the fruits of such searches, "it is powerless to deter invasions of constitutionally guaranteed rights where the police either have no interest in prosecuting or are willing to

neg: Herring v. United States invited evidence laundering by police and laid the groundwork for judicial approval of this practice", based on a case law examination of how state courts and lower federal courts had applied the Supreme Court decision since 2009. Herring v. United States Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135 (2009), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on January 14, 2009. The court decided that the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies when a police officer makes an arrest based on an outstanding warrant in another jurisdiction, but the information regarding that warrant is later

neg: United States v. Payner exclusionary rule. He cited the three circumstances under which the Supreme Court had said it was to be applied: when defendants' rights had been violated, when the court found the government's conduct outrageous, and as part of the courts' supervisory power over the operations of government, under which "to allow admission of the evidence calls into question the integrity of the entire federal judicial system". The first instance did not apply. In "Alderman v. United States", the first Fourth Amendment case decided by the Supreme Court after it shifted the root of the Amendment's protection from property to privacy in

neg: Herring v. United States Herring v. United States Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135 (2009), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on January 14, 2009. The court decided that the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies when a police officer makes an arrest based on an outstanding warrant in another jurisdiction, but the information regarding that warrant is later found to be incorrect because of a negligent error by that agency. "The Fourth Amendment contains no provision expressly precluding the use of evidence obtained in violation of its commands," but in "Weeks v. United States" (1914)

neg: Exclusionary rule following: The exclusionary rule is not applicable to non-U.S. nationals residing outside of U.S. borders. In "United States v. Alvarez-Machain", the U.S. Supreme Court decided that property owned by aliens in a foreign country is admissible in court. Certain persons in the U.S. receive limited protections, such as prisoners, probationers, parolees, and persons crossing U.S. borders. Corporations, by virtue of being, also have limited rights under the Fourth Amendment (see corporate personhood). In the case of Florida v. Jimeno it was found that the evidence found to convict Jimeno, although at first was not admissible, later was found to in

neg: United States v. Payner it pays to fall significantly short of it.'" United States v. Payner United States v. Payner, 447 U.S. 727 (1980), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court reversed a district court's suppression of evidence in the criminal prosecution of an Ohio businessman charged with tax evasion. The case concerned both issues of criminal procedure and the application of the exclusionary rule derived from the Fourth Amendment. By a 6–3 margin the Court both reaffirmed its earlier rulings' holding that only the party whose Fourth Amendment protections may have been violated has standing to challenge the evidence

neg: United States v. Payner United States v. Payner United States v. Payner, 447 U.S. 727 (1980), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court reversed a district court's suppression of evidence in the criminal prosecution of an Ohio businessman charged with tax evasion. The case concerned both issues of criminal procedure and the application of the exclusionary rule derived from the Fourth Amendment. By a 6–3 margin the Court both reaffirmed its earlier rulings' holding that only the party whose Fourth Amendment protections may have been violated has standing to challenge the evidence seized in the search, and barred lower courts

neg: Utah v. Strieff be inadmissible and that the majority's opinion will "corrode all our civil liberties"; Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined all but part IV of Justice Sotomayor's opinion. Justice Elena Kagan also wrote a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Ginsburg joined in full, where she argued that the majority's ruling "creates unfortunate incentives for the police". Utah v. Strieff Utah v. Strieff, 579 U.S. ___, 136 S. Ct. 2056 (2016), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States limited the scope of the Fourth Amendment's exclusionary rule. In December 2006, South Salt Lake, Utah police began surveilling a

neg: Utah v. Strieff Utah v. Strieff Utah v. Strieff, 579 U.S. ___, 136 S. Ct. 2056 (2016), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States limited the scope of the Fourth Amendment's exclusionary rule. In December 2006, South Salt Lake, Utah police began surveilling a suspected drug house. Police observed Edward Strieff leaving the house although they had not observed him entering it. An officer stopped Strieff on the street and conducted an investigatory detention; after asking Strieff for identification, officers discovered that Strieff had an outstanding warrant for a traffic violation. Officers conducted a search incident to his

neg: Mancusi v. DeForte DeForte's was pending before the Supreme Court, and the appeals court delayed its decision in his case until the Supreme Court made its decision. When it did, it reversed the district court since the circumstances of the case were identical. In 1970 the New York Court of Appeals granted both defendants' requests for a new trial. "Mancusi" would be the only time the Court granted a "habeas" petition through the application of the exclusionary rule. It upheld the general permissibility of such claims the following term in "Kaufman v. United States", But seven years after that, in 1976, "Stone v.

neg: Rancho Las Mariposas land grants would be honored. As required by the Land Act of 1851, a claim for Rancho Las Mariposas was filed with the U.S. Board of Land Commissioners in 1852, who confirmed Frémon's title, according to the survey, which he, himself, had made. On appeal to the U. S. District Court, the decision of the Board was reversed and Frémont's lawyers immediately appealed the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. In December 1854, the U. S. Supreme Court remanded his case back to the District Court, declaring the claim valid and ordering an official survey, and the grant was patented

neg: Exclusionary rule general warrant and the writs of assistance. In the 1886 case of "Boyd v. United States", the U.S. Supreme Court addressed compulsory production of business papers, and the Court excluded those papers based on a combination of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. "Boyd" was closely limited to its facts, and several years later the Court stated that the Fourth Amendment does not extend to "excluding testimony" about wrongful searches and seizures. In 1897, the U.S. Supreme Court held, in "Bram v. United States", that involuntary confessions are inadmissible as evidence. The Court in "Bram" did not announce a strong version

neg: Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States of the poisonous tree doctrine," and is an extension of the exclusionary rule. Chief Justice White and Associate Justice Pitney dissented without a written opinion. Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U.S. 385 (1920), was a U.S. Supreme Court Case in which Silverthorne attempted to evade paying taxes. Federal agents illegally seized tax books from Silverthorne and created copies of the records. The issue in this case is whether or not derivatives of illegal evidence are permissible in court. The ruling, delivered by Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., was that to permit derivatives would

neg: Wolf v. Colorado States". Justice Rutledge concludes by saying that the Court makes “the illegality of this search and seizure its inarticulate premise of decision.” He concurs with this premise, and believes that the conviction should be reversed. Wolf v. Colorado Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25 (1949), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held 6-3 that, while the Fourth Amendment was applicable to the states, the exclusionary rule was not a necessary ingredient of the Fourth Amendment's right against warrantless and unreasonable searches and seizures. In "Weeks v. United States", 232 U.S. 383 (1914), the Court held

neg: History of the Supreme Court of the United States to the right in areas like the death penalty ("Kansas v. Marsh"), abortion ("Gonzales v. Carhart"), the exclusionary rule for Fourth Amendment violations ("Hudson v. Michigan"), and campaign-finance regulation ("Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission"). On November 20, 2007, the Court agreed to hear a case, "District of Columbia v. Heller", that was regarded as the first important and historically significant decision on the Second Amendment to the Constitution since 1875. On March 18, 2008, the Supreme Court heard arguments concerning the constitutionality of a District of Columbia ban on handguns. On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court ruled that

neg: Birchfield v. North Dakota a warrantless breath test. Beylund, on the other hand consented to a blood test after police advised him that he was required to do. The court therefore remanded Beylund's case back to the state court "to reevaluate Beylund's consent given the partial inaccuracy of the officer's advisory." The Supreme Court of North Dakota court subsequently avoided the issue by holding that, even assuming the consent was involuntary, the Exclusionary Rule does not apply in the administrative hearing context and thus affirmed suspension of his license for testing over the prohibited level set forth in the implied consent / administrative license

neg: Arizona v. Evans objectively reasonable; thus, excluding the evidence seized in that case would not have deterred any future misconduct on the part of the police. The exclusionary rule does not serve to deter illegal conduct on the part of judges, after all. For a similar reason, the Court in "Evans" ruled that the exclusionary rule should not require suppression of the evidence seized in this case. Because court employees were responsible for the error, applying the exclusionary rule in this case would not deter future errors. First, the exclusionary rule was historically aimed at preventing police misconduct, not court clerical errors. Second,

neg: Exclusionary rule Exclusionary rule In the United States, the exclusionary rule is a legal rule, based on constitutional law. The rule prevents evidence collected or analyzed in violation of the defendant's constitutional rights from being used in a court of law. This may be considered an example of a prophylactic rule formulated by the judiciary in order to protect a constitutional right. The exclusionary rule may also, in some circumstances at least, be considered to follow directly from the constitutional language, such as the Fifth Amendment's command that no person "shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against

neg: Prophylactic rule Prophylactic rule A prophylactic rule is a judicially crafted rule that overprotects a constitutional right, and gives more protection than such right might abstractly seem to require on its face, in order to safeguard that constitutional right or improve detection of violations of that right. An example is the case of "Miranda v. Arizona" which adopted a prophylactic rule ("Miranda warnings") to protect the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. The exclusionary rule, which restricts admissibility of evidence in court, is also sometimes considered to be a prophylactic rule. The notion of prophylactic rules is controversial. U.S. Supreme Court Justices Antonin

neg: United States v. Leon United States v. Leon United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court established the "good faith" exception to the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule. On August 1981, police in Burbank, California received a tip identifying Patsy Stewart and Armando Sanchez as drug dealers. Police began surveillance of their homes and followed leads based on the cars that frequented the residences. The police identified Ricardo Del Castillo and Alberto Leon as also being involved in the operation. Based on this surveillance and information from a second informant, a detective wrote an

neg: District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983), was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court in which the Court enunciated a rule of civil procedure known as the Rooker-Feldman doctrine (also named for the earlier case of "Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co.", 263 U.S. 413 (1923). The doctrine holds that lower United States federal courts may not sit in direct review of state court decisions. The U.S. Congress enacted several pieces of legislation with respect to Washington, D.C.'s local judicial system. One required final judgments

neg: Exclusionary rule of the exclusionary rule that would apply uniformly to exclude all evidence gathered in violation of the Bill of Rights, but instead announced a weak version that excluded only self-incriminating testimony that was compelled in violation of the Fifth Amendment. The distinction between testimonial versus other self-incriminating evidence is a matter of continuing debate. Before a strong version of the exclusionary rule was addressed and adopted by the federal courts, it had already been adopted by at least one state court, namely the Iowa Supreme Court, as that court would later describe: In 1914, the U.S. Supreme Court announced a

neg: Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution way courts enforce the Fourth Amendment is through the use of the exclusionary rule. The rule provides that evidence obtained through a violation of the Fourth Amendment is generally not admissible by the prosecution during the defendant's criminal trial. The Court stated in "Elkins v. United States" (1960) that the rule's function "is to deter—to compel respect for the constitutional guaranty in the only effectively available way—by removing the incentive to disregard it." The Court adopted the exclusionary rule in "Weeks v. United States" (1914), prior to which all evidence, no matter how seized, could be admitted in court. In

neg: United States v. Payner guided the Court in other tests of the supervisory power and the exclusionary rule. Several years later, when the Court created the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule in "United States v. Leon", Byron White's majority opinion quoted Powell's criticism of the inflexible application of the rule in support of allowing good-faith exceptions. The next year, Thomas would himself cite Powell as to how the supervisory power could not be exercised in conflict with existing statutory or constitutional provisions in "Thomas v. Arn", upholding a Sixth Circuit rule that required parties appealing a district court judgement to have filed timely

neg: Elkins v. United States (1961), which applied the exclusionary rule to the states. Elkins v. United States Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206 (1960), was a US Supreme Court decision that held the "silver platter doctrine", which allowed federal prosecutors to use evidence illegally gathered by state police, to be a violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Evidence of illegal wiretapping had been seized from the home of James Butler Elkins by Portland, Oregon police officers on an unrelated search warrant, and he was subsequently convicted in federal court. Elkins appealed, arguing that evidence found by the officers should

neg: Arizona v. Evans Arizona v. Evans Arizona v. 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 Court. On December 13, 1990, a Justice of the Peace issued a warrant for the arrest of Isaac Evans (respondent), because respondent failed to appear to answer for several traffic violations. Six days later, respondent appeared by his own volition, and the Justice of

neg: Elkins v. United States Elkins v. United States Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206 (1960), was a US Supreme Court decision that held the "silver platter doctrine", which allowed federal prosecutors to use evidence illegally gathered by state police, to be a violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Evidence of illegal wiretapping had been seized from the home of James Butler Elkins by Portland, Oregon police officers on an unrelated search warrant, and he was subsequently convicted in federal court. Elkins appealed, arguing that evidence found by the officers should have been inadmissible under the exclusionary rule, which forbids

neg: Murray v. United States affected his decision to issue the warrant. Murray v. United States Murray v. United States, 487 U.S. 533 (1988), was a United States Supreme Court decision that created the modern "independent source doctrine" exception to the exclusionary rule. The exclusionary rule makes most evidence gathered through violations of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution inadmissible in criminal trials as "fruit of the poisonous tree". In "Murray", the Court ruled that when officers conduct two searches, the first unlawful and the second lawful, evidence seized during the second search is admissible if the second search "is genuinely independent of

neg: Exclusionary zoning declared unconstitutional in 1917. Despite the unconstitutionality of such explicit measures, exclusionary ordinances continued to gain popularity throughout the country. Given the increased utilization of exclusionary zoning, the United States federal government finally addressed the issue with the enactment of the Standard State Zoning Enabling Act of 1922. This legislation established the institutional framework for zoning ordinances. It delegated land-use power to local authorities for the conservation of community welfare and provided guidelines for appropriate regulation usage. In light of these developments, the Supreme Court considered zoning's constitutionality in the 1926 landmark case of Village of Euclid, Ohio v. Ambler

neg: Welsh v. Wisconsin as this. Although Welsh argues vigorously that the State violated his federal constitutional rights, he at no point relied on the exclusionary rule, and he does not contend that the Federal Constitution or federal law provides the remedy he seeks. As a general rule, this Court "reviews judgments, not statements in opinions." Black v. Cutter Laboratories, 351 U. S. 292, 351 U. S. 297 (1956). Because the Court does not purport tc hold that federal law requires the conclusion that Welsh's refusal to submit to a sobriety test was reasonable, it is not clear to me how the judgment of

neg: Rule of four Rule of four The rule of four is a Supreme Court of the United States practice that permits four of the nine justices to grant a writ of certiorari. This is done specifically to prevent a majority of the Court from controlling the Court's docket. The rule of four is not required by the Constitution, any law, or even the Supreme Court's own published rules. Rather, it is a custom that has been observed since the Court was given discretion over which appeals to hear by the Judiciary Act of 1891, Judiciary Act of 1925 and the Supreme Court Case

neg: Arizona v. Evans is not derived from the Fourth Amendment, rather it is the judicial remedy for a violation of the Fourth Amendment. Although the exclusionary rule was originally implemented as a guard for privacy rights, after "United States v. Leon", it has been interpreted by the Supreme Court as a tool for deterring police misconduct. In "United States v. Leon", , the Court had ruled that the exclusionary rule did not require the suppression of evidence seized pursuant to a search warrant that was later determined to be invalid. In "Leon", the police's reliance on the validity of the search warrant was

neg: Exclusionary rule became known in the United States before 1789 (when the U.S. Bill of Rights was written), and whether it applied to confessions obtained by both governmental and private parties. In any event, no decision by the Supreme Court of the United States has ever endorsed the "Warickshall" rule as a constitutional matter. Generally speaking, English law before 1789 did not provide as strong an exclusionary rule as the one that later developed under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, regarding unlawful searches and seizures. The Fourth Amendment, after all, was partly a reaction against English law including the

neg: Arizona v. Evans it happens to be the police department or not." Upon appeal, the Arizona Court of Appeals reversed the decision on a divided vote because it "believed that the exclusionary rule [was] not intended to deter justice court employees or Sheriff's Office employees who are not directly associated with the arresting officers or the arresting officers' police department." The Arizona Supreme Court rejected this distinction, reasoning that the exclusionary rule would force criminal records to be kept more efficiently by those who maintain them, whether police or court staff. The Fourth Amendment guards against unreasonable searches and seizures. The exclusionary rule

neg: California v. Hodari D. California v. Hodari D. California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621 (1991), was a United States Supreme Court case where the Court held that a fleeing suspect is not "seized" under the terms of the Fourth Amendment unless the pursuing officers apply physical force to the suspect or the suspect submits to officers' demands to halt. Consequently, evidence that is discarded by a fleeing suspect prior to the point in time at which they are seized is not subject to the Fourth Amendment's exclusionary rule. In April 1988, police officers on patrol in Oakland, California encountered "four or five youths

neg: Colorado v. Bertine United States v. Chadwick, 433 U. S. 1, and Arkansas v. Sanders, 442 U. S. 753, distinguished. Colorado v. Bertine Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367 (1987), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the State from proving charges with the evidence discovered during an inventory search. This case is controlled by the principles governing inventory searches of automobiles and of an arrestee's personal effects, as set forth in South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U. S. 364, and Illinois v. Lafayette, 462 U. S. 640, rather than

neg: Commonwealth v. Matos over 200 years. The court recognized that the exclusionary rule under Pennsylvania law went further than the U.S. Constitution. Where federal protection was meant solely to deter police conduct, state protection was "unshakably linked to a right of privacy in [the] Commonwealth." Commonwealth v. Matos Commonwealth v. Matos, 672 A.2d 769 (1996), is a Pennsylvania State Supreme Court case which further developed Pennsylvania Constitutional Law as affording greater privacy protections than those guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Specifically, where police possess neither probable cause nor reasonable suspicion, contraband discarded by a person fleeing a police

neg: Greenlaw v. United States Alito started with the premise that the cross-appeal rule was merely a "rule of appellate practice" that "rest[s] on premises about the efficient use of judicial resources and the proper role of the tribunal in an adversary system." Because those rules are judge-made rules, they can be altered by judges "sua sponte". Greenlaw v. United States Greenlaw v. United States, 554 U.S. 237 (2008), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a federal appeals court may not "sua sponte" increase a defendant's sentence unless the government first files a notice of appeal. Greenlaw had

neg: In re Marriage of J.B. and H.B. equal protection clauses. The case was before the Texas Supreme Court, but the case was dismissed due to the death of one of the parties. Two men living in Dallas who had married in Massachusetts in September 2006, identified by the courts as J.B. and H.B., filed for a divorce in January 2008 in Dallas County District Court. Their attorney, Peter Schulte, claimed that Article IV Section 1 of the U. S. Constitution, which requires each state to give "full faith and credit" to the legal proceedings of other states, required Texas to recognize a valid Massachusetts marriage. Attorney General

neg: Supreme Court of Indiana decision lead to the first execution of a white man for crimes against natives. In the "Falkenburg v. Jones" case (1889), Indiana became the first state to establish the right for a defendant to obtain court records free of charge. The 1909 case of "Woessner v. Bullick" established that the Court could invalidate a governor's veto if proper veto procedures were not followed, in effect ruling the pocket-veto as unconstitutional. In 1917 the state was among the first to adopt an Exclusionary rule, established in the case of "Callendar v. State", which prevented illegally obtained evidence from be submitted in

neg: Welsh v. Wisconsin 14 (citing other statutes). Our personal convenience still weighs heavily in the balance, and the highway deaths and Page 466 U. S. 756 injuries continue. But if Wisconsin and other States choose by legislation thus to regulate their penalty structure, there is, unfortunately, nothing in the United States Constitution that says they may not do so." Justice Byron White filed a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justice William Rehnquist, arguing that the State of Wisconsin's interest to combat drunk driving, along with Welsh's behavior, was in line with the Fourth Amendment, Welsh did not use the exclusionary rule when

neg: Baltimore Gas & Electric Co. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. to the Supreme Court case "Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.", 435 U.S. 519 (1978). Then, the Supreme Court reversed the ruling by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that the NRC rulemaking procedures to develop the rule were inadequate. It stated that the NRC had done everything that was required by NEPA and the Administrative Procedures Act and that courts lack the authority to impose rulemaking procedures greater than those contemplated by these statutes. The case was remanded for the circuit court to determine whether the Table S-3 rule was

neg: Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita Beneficente União do Vegetal to ensure future importation of the tea for religious use. The church won a preliminary injunction from the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico, which was affirmed on appeal. The Supreme Court affirmed. The Court also disagreed with the government's central argument that the uniform application of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) does not allow for exceptions for the substance in this case, as Native Americans are given exceptions to use peyote, another Schedule I substance. On May 21, 1999, U. S. Customs agents seized over of "hoasca" (ayahuasca) tea which was shipped to the Santa

neg: United States v. Payner Lastly, to respond to charges that this was potentially an indiscriminate application of the exclusionary rule, he quoted from one of Powell's own opinions, in "Hampton v. United States" to the effect that at some point a case where the Court would have to take a stand against abusive investigative methods. "That appropriate case has arrived, and the Court should prevent the Government from profiting by use in the federal courts of evidence deliberately obtained by illegal actions taken in bad faith hostility to constitutional rights." No later holdings modified "Payner", but it has been among the cases that have

neg: Knock-and-announce simple knock-and-announce rule has not been deemed grave enough in the federal courts or in most states to justify suppression of the evidence. Most states have composed their own statutes, which require a knock and announcement before making a warranted entry. Because the states are free to offer more liberty to criminal defendants than the US Constitution, the states remain free to impose the exclusionary rule for a violation of the knock-and-announce rule. The Supreme Court opinion in "Hudson" is necessarily binding only on searches conducted by the federal government. Knock-and-announce Knock-and-announce, in United States law criminal procedure, is an

neg: Gill v. Whitford November 1, 2017 as remedy for the case, using proposals brought by the plaintiffs to guide their decisions. The State announced its intentions to appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States following the District Court's ruling in November 2016. Due to special procedures in the Supreme Court involving voters' rights cases, the Supreme Court was required to take the case, though whether they would summarily rule to affirm or reverse, or hear the case in full, would be up to the discretion of the Court. The State asked that the action in the District Court be put on

neg: Bernard S. Cohen Bernard S. Cohen Bernard S. "Bernie" Cohen (born January 17, 1934) was a politician and former Democratic member of the Virginia House of Delegates. On April 10, 1967, he presented oral argument for the petitioners in the "Loving v. Virginia" case before the U. S. Supreme Court. On June 12, 1967, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Cohen's clients, declaring bans on interracial marriage unconstitutional, thus invalidating the anti-miscegenation laws of 15 states. Although some nine states failed to repeal the offending statutes following the Supreme Court ruling, those laws were no longer enforceable. Cohen was born in Brooklyn,

neg: Benjamin N. Cardozo the legal world. While on the Court of Appeals, he criticized the Exclusionary rule as developed by the federal courts, and stated that: "The criminal is to go free because the constable has blundered." He noted that many states had rejected the rule, but suggested that the adoption by the federal courts would affect the practice in the sovereign states. In 1932, President Herbert Hoover appointed Cardozo to the Supreme Court of the United States to succeed Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes. "The New York Times" said of Cardozo's appointment that "seldom, if ever, in the history of the Court has

neg: Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution aggrieved." Several cases in 1984 further restricted the exclusionary rule: In "Arizona v. Evans" (1995) and "Herring v. United States" (2009), the Court ruled that the exclusionary rule does not apply to evidence found due to negligence regarding a government database, as long as the arresting police officer relied on that database in "good faith" and the negligence was not pervasive. In "Davis v. United States" (2011), the Court ruled that the exclusionary rule does not apply to a Fourth Amendment violation resulting from a reasonable reliance on binding appellate precedent. In "Utah v. Strieff" (2016), the Court ruled that

neg: Rule against foreign revenue enforcement provision to revenue statutes themselves, but limited its ruling to enforcement of tax judgments handed down in the courts of other states. The Supreme Court of Canada has upheld and applied the revenue rule in "United States v. Harden" [1963] SCR 366. Civil law (as opposed to common law) jurisdictions will not generally entertain foreign tax claims on the basis that they are public laws, and therefore cannot be enforced outside of the state or territory. In the Swedish case of "Bulgariska Staten v Takvorian" (NJA 1954 s.268) the court held "a state cannot use a Swedish court to collect

neg: Exclusionary rule in American history. In 2014, Roots elaborated that certain eighteenth-century British law books and pamphlets which discuss the exclusion of illegally seized evidence circulated widely in the American colonies and were owned by numerous prominent Framing-era lawyers and statesmen. Also in 2014, Professor Richard Re proposed that the Due Process Clause provides an ample basis for the Exclusionary Rule. Exclusionary rule In the United States, the exclusionary rule is a legal rule, based on constitutional law. The rule prevents evidence collected or analyzed in violation of the defendant's constitutional rights from being used in a court of law. This may

neg: Discretionary jurisdiction questions or revisiting older legal rules that are now clearly obsolete or unconstitutional. For example, the United States Supreme Court hears cases by a writ of certiorari, essentially meaning that it calls appellants up to the court only if their case is important enough to merit the resources of the court. The Supreme Court employs a "rule of four", meaning that four justices have to think the case is important enough to hear before the court will grant it review. Many state supreme courts use a similar process to choose which cases they will hear. Discretionary jurisdiction Discretionary jurisdiction is

neg: Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, 577 U.S. ___ (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court affirmed the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, which held that representative evidence could be used to support the claims of the class. The case arose as a class action lawsuit against Tyson Foods. The Supreme Court affirmed the Eighth Circuit's judgment that the class satisfied the predominance requirement of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 23, and that the use of representative evidence was allowable in this

neg: Section 24 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms be submitted in a trial. The US exclusionary rule excludes all evidence acquired through the violation of the Bill of Rights. Canada has taken a middle ground, "sometimes" allowing for the exclusion of evidence, whenever its use threatens to bring the "administration of justice" into "disrepute." In the 2009 case "R. v. Grant", the Supreme Court of Canada created a new test to determine when the administration of justice has been brought into disrepute (replacing the 1987 test in "R. v. Collins"). The "Grant" test lists three factors the courts must consider: (1) the seriousness of the "Charter"-infringing conduct (focusing

neg: Hazlehurst v. United States Hazlehurst v. United States Hazlehurst v. United States, , was a 1799 decision of the United States Supreme Court asserting that the appellants (several similar cases were combined) failure to appear in court regarding their writ of error resulted in SCOTUS issuing a orders of non prosequitur. The case was a federal case from South Caroline disputing their written seal on a bond which was purportedly improper because a wax seal was required. In error from the circuit court for the district of South Carolina. A rule had been obtained by Lee, the attorney-general, at the opening of the court,

neg: Exclusionary rule strong version of the exclusionary rule, in the case of "Weeks v. United States", under the Fourth Amendment prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures. This decision, however, created the rule only on the federal level. The ""Weeks" rule," which made an exception for cases at the state level, was adopted by numerous states at a time during prohibition. In adopting the rule, actions by states often reflected attitudes towards prohibition, which was enacted by adoption of the Eighteenth Amendment and was enforced through the Volstead Act. Concerns about privacy violations also extended to other instances where criminal sanctions were permitted for

neg: Tuskegee, Alabama challenge the law in court, in a case supported by the NAACP. The law was initially upheld by the US District Court and affirmed by the Appeals Court based in New Orleans. Known as "Gomillion v. Lightfoot," it was decided by the US Supreme Court in 1960, with the ruling implemented in 1961. The court ruled that the gerrymandering of city boundaries was racially motivated and violated the Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution which states that "states were not insulated from federal judicial review when they jeopardized federally protected rights." The exclusionary gerrymandering was overturned and the city

neg: United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez government to conduct the search. The agents found documents believed to be the defendant's records of his marijuana shipments. When the government sought to introduce the documents as evidence in court, the defendant objected, asserting that they were obtained without a warrant, and therefore could not constitutionally be used at trial. The United States District Court agreed, and invoked the exclusionary rule to suppress the documents (i.e., to prevent them from being used as evidence). The government appealed this ruling, which was affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The government then appealed to the Supreme Court.

neg: Mitchell v. Donovan for a declaratory judgment striking down the Communist Control Act, on which the state authorities had relied in refusing ballot placement: Appellants brought a direct appeal to this Court under 28 U. S. C. § 1253, which permits an "appeal to the Supreme Court from an order granting or denying . . . an interlocutory or permanent injunction . . . ." On direct appeal, the United States Supreme Court, in a per curiam opinion representing six members of the court, vacated the judgment and remanded the case. Held: An order granting or denying only a declaratory judgment may not

neg: United States v. Janis that analyzed it (the IRS) are two separate “sovereigns”. The Court closely notes that Janis cited several instances where the exclusionary rule has been extended to civil cases, however all of these instances were “intrasovereign”, not “intersovereign”. "Compton v. United States" was cited, a case in which the Fourth Circuit Court determined that the fact that evidence is seized illegally by the police is irrelevant to a tax assessment made by the IRS. This case was strikingly similar to the one at hand and provided key case law for the decision. The majority opinion was written by Justice Harry A.

neg: Herring v. United States "the exclusionary rule provides redress for Fourth Amendment violations by placing the government in the position it would have been in had there been no unconstitutional arrest and search. The rule thus strongly encourages police compliance with the Fourth Amendment in the future." The prosecution had contested the unlawful case in court because of contraband found on Herring's person and in his vehicle, but, Ginsburg wrote, narrowing the scope of the exclusionary rule would most typically hurt innocent persons who are wrongfully arrested. Writing shortly after the decision, SCOTUSblog author Tom Goldstein stated that the decision was of "surpassing significance";

neg: William John Cox for a legal remedy alternative to the Fourth Amendment Exclusionary Rule. The article was cited to the California Conference on the Judiciary, Supreme Court of the United States and the United States Senate. Cox was awarded a Juris Doctor degree "cum laude" in 1973. He was working in Washington, DC when the results of the State Bar examination were published, and he was administered his attorney's oath by Justice Tom C. Clark in the chambers of the U.S. Supreme Court. In autographing a photograph of the event, Justice Clark predicted that Cox's voice "will be a strong one for equal

neg: Hayburn's Case and North Carolina. The decision, however, may have been due the lack of the authority of the appellant, the Attorney General of the United States, Edmund Randolph, to bring the appeal to the Supreme Court. Attorney General Randolph initiated the case at the Supreme Court neither on behalf of the United States or Mr. Hayburn. The Court declined to rule on a lower court decision, possibly because only the Attorney General wanted it to do so. Hayburn's Case Hayburn's Case, 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 409 (1792), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States was invited

neg: Bernard S. Cohen Loving", he was played by Corey Parker. In the 2016 film "Loving", he is played by Nick Kroll. Bernard S. Cohen Bernard S. "Bernie" Cohen (born January 17, 1934) was a politician and former Democratic member of the Virginia House of Delegates. On April 10, 1967, he presented oral argument for the petitioners in the "Loving v. Virginia" case before the U. S. Supreme Court. On June 12, 1967, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Cohen's clients, declaring bans on interracial marriage unconstitutional, thus invalidating the anti-miscegenation laws of 15 states. Although some nine states failed to repeal the

neg: Herring v. United States no negligence could be claimed because of the lack of a pattern of disposal problems. The Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari on February 19, 2008. The case was argued before the Court on October 7, 2008. In a 5-4 decision hewing to "Leon" and "Evans", the Court, speaking through Chief Justice Roberts, affirmed the trial court and the Eleventh Circuit. While noting that there had not necessarily been a constitutional violation in the case, the Court accepted for the sake of argument Herring's contention that there had been. On that stipulation, the court held that the exclusionary

neg: Colorado v. Bertine Colorado v. Bertine Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367 (1987), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the State from proving charges with the evidence discovered during an inventory search. This case is controlled by the principles governing inventory searches of automobiles and of an arrestee's personal effects, as set forth in South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U. S. 364, and Illinois v. Lafayette, 462 U. S. 640, rather than those governing searches of closed trunks and suitcases conducted solely for the purpose of investigating criminal conduct.

neg: Florida v. Jimeno officer acted within reason. Jimeno was thus found guilty and the officer was not in violation of the 4th amendment. This case grants law enforcement greater ability to conduct searches. It also narrows the definition of unreasonable searches and thus limits the protection citizens can seek against such searches. Evidence cannot be excluded from a case if it is deemed to have been discovered through reasonable means. Florida v. Jimeno Florida v. Jimeno, 500 U.S. 248 (1991), was a U.S. Supreme Court case involving the exclusionary rule of evidence under the Fourth Amendment. A police officer pulled over Enio Jimeno

neg: Carroll v. Town of Princess Anne Carroll v. Town of Princess Anne Carroll v. Princess Anne, , was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a state cannot preemptively prohibit persons from holding a public meeting, without first notifying the persons involved, and providing the persons an opportunity to argue the decision, unless moving party can show (per the equivalent of today's Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65) (1) that they made efforts to give to notice, and (2) explain to the court the reasons why such notice should not be required. The National States Rights Party won the case unanimously.

neg: District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman the federal district court. District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983), was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court in which the Court enunciated a rule of civil procedure known as the Rooker-Feldman doctrine (also named for the earlier case of "Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co.", 263 U.S. 413 (1923). The doctrine holds that lower United States federal courts may not sit in direct review of state court decisions. The U.S. Congress enacted several pieces of legislation with respect to Washington, D.C.'s local judicial system.

neg: Elena Kagan Worcester College, Oxford. As part of her graduation requirement, Kagan wrote a thesis on "The Development and Erosion of the American Exclusionary Rule: A Study in Judicial Method". This thesis presented a critical look at the exclusionary rule and its evolution on the Supreme Court—in particular the Warren Court. She earned a Master of Philosophy in Politics at Oxford in 1983. At 23, she entered Harvard Law School in 1983. Her adjustment to the atmosphere of Harvard was rocky, she received the worst grades of her entire law school career in her first semester. Kagan would go on to earn

neg: Entrapment considered in the abstract would be the test. This, supporters argued, avoided the dubious issue of an unexpressed legislative intent on which the "Sorrells" court had relied and instead grounded the entrapment defence, like the exclusionary rule, in the court's supervisory role over law enforcement. And like the exclusionary rule, they would have had judges, not juries, decide whether a defendant had been entrapped as a matter of law. Since the subjective test focusing on predisposition had, unlike the exclusionary rule, not been applied to the states, they were free to follow it as they saw fit. The state courts

neg: Massachusetts v. Mellon a private prosecution of a public right. The Warren Court would later carve out an exception to this rule in "Flast v. Cohen", but later cases have confirmed that "Flast" is an exceedingly limited exception to "Frothingham"'s general rule (see "Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State" and "Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation"). Massachusetts v. Mellon Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447 (1923), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court rejected the concept of taxpayer standing. The case was consolidated with "Frothingham v. Mellon". The plaintiffs in the cases,

neg: United States v. Payner flow from indiscriminate application of an exclusionary rule." Thus its use was properly restricted to instances where it would most be useful in remedying the violation, wrote Powell. "Our cases have consistently recognized that unbending application of the exclusionary sanction to enforce ideals of governmental rectitude would impede unacceptably the truthfinding functions of judge and jury." Similarly, Powell wrote, the supervisory power should be carefully used. The Court had said as such in "Elkins v. United States" nearly two decades before, and demonstrated that restraint most recently in "United States v. Caceres" "Were we to accept this use of the