8 hours

1

43 issues found in this text

Score: 56 of 100

Report generated on Mon, Sep 22 2014 06:26 PM

Unoriginal text: 12%

Matching sources: www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/378/1

law.justia.com/cases/texas/first-court-of-appeals/...

www.chanrobles.com/usa/us_supremecourt/232/383/cas...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weeks_v._United_States

www.le.utah.gov/code/TITLE23/htm/23_20_002800.htm

Plagiarism 12% Citation audit

Spelling Correction

7 issues

Spelling (4)

Accidentally confused words (3)

Grammar 7 issues

Passive voice use (7)

Grammar 7 issues

Use of articles (4)

Modal verbs (1)

Use of nouns (2)

Punctuation 7 issues

Punctuation between clauses (2)

Punctuation within a clause (5)

Sentence Structure

1 issue

Sentence fragment (1)

Style Check 13 issues

Usage of colloquial speech (9)

Wordiness (4)

Constitutional Policing

Running Head: Constitutional Policing

Constitutional Policing Name Course Title Instructor Date

Constitutional Policing In the case law of Week vs. United States, 232 US 383 - Supreme Court 1914, the defendant was arrested by a police officer 1 in Cansas 2 ( Kansas, Casas, Canvas, Canas, Cangas ) . Other officers entered the defendant 's house with a search warrant and took possession of papers and articles which were 3 turned over to the United States Marshall. The seizure of private documents from the defendant 's private home without lawful search warrant constituted a violation of the Fourth Amendment 4 ( \ ) which prohibits against unreasonable searches , seizures and evidence obtained in any unconstitutional manner . The above obtained

2

evidence was excluded from being used in any federal criminal prosecutions . The act of the police officers of taking the defendants papers and articles from his private residence constituted Fourth Amendment violation and breach and hence inadmissible in any prosecution . The Fourth Amendment stipulates the need for the right of people to be secure in their persons , houses , papers and effects against unreasonable searches and 5 seizure , and no warrants for such searches and seizure can be issued but upon probable cause , supported by Oath and / or affirmations particularly describing the place , person or thing to be searched 6

(Harr Et al, 2014). 7 Therefore 8 ( \ ) the Fourth Amendment stipulates that for evidence to be used in any proceeding , arising from evidence that was obtained through illegal / unlawful means of search and seizure , it must be obtained through circumstances that amount to probable cause which 9 ( that ) is in turn supported by an oath as to the person / thing to be searched . In this case the property of the defendant was being held unlawfully and improperly hence violating his rights under the United States Constitution and 10 those of the Missouri state . With 11 ( the , a ) reliance on the case of Bram Vs United States, 168 U.S.532, the court 12 stated that the Constitution guarantees the state to people 's houses , paper against unreasonable searches and seizures under guise of the law (Robert, 2003). In the case law of Silverthorne tumber 13 ( timber, tumble, tumbler, lumber, tumour ) Co, Inc Et al vs. 14 United States, 251 US 385 - Supreme Court 1920, the facts of the case were that Silverthorne was trying to evade paying tax . This 15 made the federal agents to illegally seize his tax books and created copies of the records . The issue before the United States Supreme court 16 was whether or not derivatives of such illegal evidence was permissible the court . The court with its basis on the Fourth Amendment held that admission and admissibility of such evidence would amount to 17 ( the , a ) circumvention of the Fourth Amendment. This 18 therefore 19 ( \, therefore\ ) made the illegally obtained evidence inadmissible (Harr Et al, 2014).. The derivatives were considered illegal and inadmissible in court as it did not merit the law threshold of being obtained through lawful means . The above case law resulted in what is termed the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine /exclusionary rule which mandates that any evidence obtained through illegal arrest , unreasonable search and / or coercive interrogation is inadmissible and can not be used in a 20 ( the ) trial . This 21 was put into effect to deter law enforcers from violating personal rights against unreasonable seizures and searches . In Mapp vs. Ohio, 367 US 643 - Supreme Court 1961, the case revolved around search and seizure . It pertains as to how law enforcement illegally searched and / or seized property without due process of the law in that the owner of the house denied law enforcement access to search the premises making the law enforcement to take to barge into the house with providing a fake search warrant and arresting the owner of the house for being belligerent. 22

The fourth Amendment makes it a civil violation for any police officer to enter homes , search a home , and search a vehicle without probable cause to search . Therefore 23 ( \ ) an officer has no grounds to search a home without having probable cause to search . This case brought new constitutional rights into the bill of rights listed under the Fourth Amendment that protects citizens from illegal and unlawful searches and seizure from the police , government or any law enforcement official . Therefore 24 ( \ ) the underlying was the constitutionality of using evidence obtained from illegal and / or unreasonable search to prosecute a defendant (Harr Et al, 2014). The court was therefore of the agreement that evidence obtained illegally from a suspect through illegal search and seizure could not be used in 25 a trial without violating the Fourth Amendment that prohibits illegal search and seizure without a warrant . 26 The court held that states must abide by the exclusionary rule 27 as a means of ensuring justice . This exclusionary rule was an essential part of the Fourth Amendment that tends to safeguard 28 ( \ ) and individuals shall not be deprived of their life , liberty and property and their right to privacy from any unlawful search . The court in Boyed 29 ( Boyd, Boyer, Boy, Boyes, Buoyed ) v.United States, 116 U.S.616, 630(1886) stressed that , the constitutional provision for the security and property of a person should be protected by the states against unwarranted searches and seizures unless they are lawfully obligated to (Robert, 2003). Therefore any evidence obtained through express / implied violation of the Fourth Amendment amounting to illegal search and seizure without express consent or lawful search warrant cannot 30 ( can not ) be used in any state law criminal

3

prosecutions or federal criminal prosecution courts . 31 This 32 is because it amounts to unconstitutionally obtained evidence thereby breaching and violating ones 33 ( one's ) 34 ( one's ) 35

( one's ) rights under the Bill of Rights. This 36 is also to the fact that the Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures that contravene the law . The three case laws have formed the standards of constitutional searches and seizures in the United States 37 in the following ways . The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution 38 represents a 39

( an ) uniform national standard . The United States may exceed this standard , as long as they do n't 40 ( do not ) violate other provisions of the 41 federal courts . The Fourth Amendment of the United States constitution 42 therefore 43 ( \, therefore\ ) protects the personal privacy and right to be free from unreasonable searches . The Fourth Amendment protects the search and seizure of a person through arrest , police search on places and items of an individual . This 44 in turn protects the individuals during the searches and detentions for any illegally collected evidence (Robert, 2003). The Fourth Amendment further Elucidates when an a police officer can obtained 45

( obtain, be obtained ) evidence from a person , first if the officer or government agent has a valid search warrant , arrest warrant or he / she believes that there is a probable cause that an individual / person has committed a crime . However , if the provisions of the Fourth Amendment are violated to which a search / seizure that is unlawful is conducted , any derived evidence obtained through this would be in admissible 46 ( inadmissible ) in any court proceedings . This 47

applies to individuals and persons whose rights have been protected under the United States Constitution through the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.

Writing issues in this paragraph: 1 Citation audit

2 General

3 Citation audit

4 NonRestrictiveClause

5 Citation audit

6 Citation audit

7 LongSentence

8 NoCommaWithIntrPhrase

9 WhichRestrictive

10 Citation audit

11 MissingArt

12 Citation audit

13 General

14 Fragment

15 UnclearAntecedent

16 Citation audit

17 MissingArt

18 UnclearAntecedent

19 NoCommaWithInterrupters

20 AVsThe

21 UnclearAntecedent

22 LongSentence

23 NoCommaWithIntrPhrase

24 NoCommaWithIntrPhrase

25 Citation audit

26 LongSentence

4

27 Citation audit

28 NoCommaWithCC

29 General

30 General

31 LongSentence

32 UnclearAntecedent

33 PluralVsPos

34 PluralVsPos

35 General

36 UnclearAntecedent

37 Citation audit

38 Citation audit

39 AVsAn

40 ContractionsInAcademic

41 Citation audit

42 Citation audit

43 NoCommaWithInterrupters

44 UnclearAntecedent

45 WithNonInf

46 General

47 UnclearAntecedent

References Harr, K.Hess &Christine Hess Orthman 1 ( Othman, Ortman ) (2014). Constitutional Law and the Criminal Justice System. Robert M.Bloom (2003). Searches , Seizures and Warrants: A Reference Guide to The United States Constitution. 2

Writing issues in this paragraph: 1 General

2 Citation audit