Slide 1
BHS Law Related Education Program
Lesson
3:
Criminal Justice
Criminal Procedure and the Constitution
III. Criminal Procedure and the Constitution
Lesson Objectives
A. Analyze and Define Criminal Procedure
B. Analyze the provisions of the 4th and 5th
Amendments pertaining to your right to be
free from illegal searches and seizures and
your right to remain silent
C. Comprehend affect of U.S. Supreme Court
decision in Miranda v. Arizona
D. Define the Exclusionary Rule and the Plain
View Doctrine
Slide 2
BHS Law Related Education Program
Lesson
3:
Criminal Justice
Criminal Procedure and the Constitution
III. Criminal Procedure and the Constitution
D. The Exclusionary Rule and the Plain
View Doctrine
1)
The exclusionary rule is a judge-made rule that evidence
obtained by the government in violation of a defendant's
constitutional rights can't be used against him or her.
2)
By filing a motion to suppress before the trial asking the
judge to rule the evidence as inadmissible, a defendant
may prevent the prosecution from using illegally obtained
evidence.
3)
The exclusionary rule usually applies to suppression of
physical evidence (for example, a murder weapon, stolen
property, or illegal drugs) that the police seize in violation
of a defendant's Fourth Amendment right not to be
subjected to unreasonable search and seizure.
Slide 3
BHS Law Related Education Program
Lesson
3:
Criminal Justice
Criminal Procedure and the Constitution
III. Criminal Procedure and the Constitution
D. The Exclusionary Rule and the Plain View
Doctrine
4. Weeks v. U.S. (1914)
a) The exclusionary rule was created by the U.S. Supreme
Court in Weeks v. U.S.
b) Weeks is premised on the idea that when the police exceed
their constitutional authority in conducting a search, then
that search must be null and void and any evidence
discovered as a result of that search cannot be used at
trial.
5. Mapp v. Ohio (1961)
a)
The U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed that evidence obtained
in violation of the 4th Amendment may not be used in
criminal prosecutions.
Slide 4
BHS Law Related Education Program
Lesson
3:
Criminal Justice
Criminal Procedure and the Constitution
III. Criminal Procedure and the Constitution
D. The Exclusionary Rule and the Plain
View Doctrine
6. U.S. v. Leon (1984)
a)
In U.S. v. Leon, the U.S. Supreme Court carved out the
good faith exception: if the police make an honest
mistake in conducting a search—that is, if the police act
on the basis of a search warrant which a court later
declares invalid—the seized evidence is still admissible.
Slide 5
BHS Law Related Education Program
Lesson
3:
Criminal Justice
Criminal Procedure and the Constitution
III. Criminal Procedure and the Constitution
D. The Exclusionary Rule and the Plain View
Doctrine
7)
THE PLAIN VIEW DOCTRINE
a) The Plain View Doctrine allows an officer to seize – without a
warrant – evidence and contraband found in plain view during
a lawful observation.
b) For the plain view doctrine to apply for discoveries, the threeprong Horton test requires:
1. The officer to be lawfully present at the place where the
evidence can be plainly viewed,
2. The officer to have a lawful right of access to the object, and
3. The incriminating character of the object to be “immediately
apparent.”
Slide 6
BHS Law Related Education Program
Lesson
3:
Criminal Justice
Criminal Procedure and the Constitution
III. Criminal Procedure and the Constitution
D. The Exclusionary Rule and the Plain View Doctrine
7)
f)
THE PLAIN VIEW DOCTRINE
In Terry v. Ohio, (1968), the U.S. Supreme Court which held
that the 4th Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches
and seizures is not violated when a police officer stops a
suspect on the street and frisks him or her without probable
cause, if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the
person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a
crime and has a reasonable belief that the person "may be
armed and presently dangerous.
g) For their own protection, police may perform a quick surface
search of the person’s outer clothing for weapons if they have
reasonable suspicion that the person stopped is armed.
Slide 7
BHS Law Related Education Program
Lesson
3:
Criminal Justice
Criminal Procedure and the Constitution
III. Criminal Procedure and the Constitution
D. The Exclusionary Rule and the Plain View
Doctrine
7)
THE PLAIN VIEW DOCTRINE
c) In order for the officer to seize the item, the officer must have
probable cause to believe the item is evidence of a crime or is
contraband. The police may not move objects to get a better
view.
d) In Arizona v. Hicks, (1987), While investigating a shooting,
the officer moved, without probable cause, stereo equipment to
record the serial numbers. the officer was found to have acted
unlawfully.
e)
The plain view doctrine has also been expanded to include
the sub doctrines of plain feel, plain smell, and plain hearing.