8 hours

1

31 issues found in this text

Score: 64 of 100

Report generated on Mon, Sep 22 2014 08:53 PM

Unoriginal text: 12%

Matching sources: answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=2014063007524...

www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/378/1

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

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weeks_v._United_States

www.ask.com/question/how-did-the-due-process-revol...

Plagiarism 12% Citation audit

Spelling Correction

4 issues

Spelling (3)

Accidentally confused words (1)

Grammar 8 issues

Passive voice use (8)

Grammar 4 issues

Use of articles (1)

Use of nouns (2)

Subject and verb agreement (1)

Punctuation 6 issues

Punctuation within a clause (6)

Sentence Structure

1 issue

Sentence fragment (1)

Style Check 7 issues

Usage of colloquial speech (5)

Improper formatting (1)

Wordiness (1)

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 Kansas. Other officers entered the defendant 's house without a search warrant and took possession of papers and articles which were 2 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 that prohibits against unreasonable searches , seizures and evidence obtained in

2

any unconstitutional manner . The above obtained 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 secures persons , houses , papers against unreasonable searches and 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 (Harr Et al, 2014). Therefore , 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 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 those of the Missouri state . With the reliance on the case of Bram V. United States, 168 U. S.532, the court 3 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 4 ( timber, tumble, tumbler, lumber, tumour ) Co, Inc Et al vs. 5 United States, 251 US 385 - Supreme Court 1920, the facts of the case were that Silverthorne was trying to evade paying tax . These made the federal agents to illegally seize his tax books and created copies of the records . The issue before the Supreme Court was whether 6 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 the circumvention of the Fourth Amendment. This 7 8 ( \ ) therefore , 9 ( ___ ) 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 the ` trial . This 10 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 . The plaintiffs illegally searched and seized the defendant 's property without due process of the law . 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 11

( \ ) 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 12 ( \ ) 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 13 a trial without violating the Fourth Amendment that prohibits illegal search and seizure without a warrant . 14 The court held that states must abide by the exclusionary rule 15 as a means of ensuring justice . This exclusionary rule was an essential part of the Fourth Amendment that tends to safeguard individuals / persons shall not be deprived of their life , liberty 16 and property and their right to privacy from any unlawful search . The court in Boyed 17 ( 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). Any evidence obtained illegally through unlawful search and seizure violates the provisions of the Fourth Amendment. 18 criminal 19 ( Criminal ) prosecution courts . This 20 is because it amounts to unconstitutionally obtained evidence thereby breaching and violating ones 21 ( one's ) 22 ( one's ) 23 ( one's ) rights under the Bill of Rights. This 24 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 25 in the following ways . The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution 26 represents a 27 ( an )

3

uniform national standard . The United States may exceed this standard , as long as they do not violate other provisions of the 28 federal courts . The Fourth Amendment of the United States constitution 29 30 ( \ ) therefore , 31 ( ___ ) 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 . These protects 32 ( protect ) the individuals during the searches and detentions for any illegally collected evidence (Robert, 2003). The Fourth Amendment further Elucidates that a police officer can obtain 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 33 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 inadmissible in any court proceedings . This 34 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 Citation audit

3 Citation audit

4 General

5 Fragment

6 Citation audit

7 UnclearAntecedent

8 NoCommaWithInterrupters

9 CommaBetweenSubjVerb

10 UnclearAntecedent

11 NoCommaWithIntrPhrase

12 NoCommaWithIntrPhrase

13 Citation audit

14 LongSentence

15 Citation audit

16 Citation audit

17 General

18 Citation audit

19 UpperCaseSentenceStart

20 UnclearAntecedent

21 PluralVsPos

22 PluralVsPos

23 General

24 UnclearAntecedent

25 Citation audit

26 Citation audit

27 AVsAn

28 Citation audit

29 Citation audit

30 NoCommaWithInterrupters

31 CommaBetweenSubjVerb

32 PersonalPronoun

33 Citation audit

4

34 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