Case Study

This case study paper is focused on the exclusionary rule, which is defined as an interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment by the Supreme Court that holds evidence seized in violation of the U.S. Constitution cannot be used in court against a defendant (Dempsey, J., Forst, L., 2011). What this rule pretty much means is that any evidence that is found to be seized in violation of the U.S. Constitution can be suppressed in court and not used against the arrested subject. The exclusionary rule evolved in U.S. law through a series of Supreme Court cases. Since at least 1914, the Supreme Court has been concerned with the use of illegal means by the police to seize evidence in violation of the Constitution, and then using that evidence to convict a defendant in court (Dempsey, J., Forst, L., 2011). The court continually warned state courts and law enforcement agencies that they must amend their procedures in order to comply with the U.S. Constitution or risk the exclusionary rule being imposed on them as well. By 1961, the Supreme Court, noting that the state courts had not amended their procedures to conform to the Constitution, applied the exclusionary rule to the state courts and law enforcement agencies, as well as federal ones. The following cases Weeks vs. United States, Rochin vs. California and Mapp vs. Ohio, I will compare and contrast each individual case. I will also explain the effects that the ruling decision by the Supreme Court had on evidence obtained from police search and seizure.

The first case I will focus on is Weeks vs. United States, in which this was the first case in U.S. history where the exclusionary rule was used. This case involved federal law enforcement personnel entering an arrested person’s home and seizing evidence without a warrant (Dempsey, J., Forst, L., 2011). In this case the evidence that was seized was used against the defendant and he was convicted because of it. As explained the exclusionary rule provided that any...