Notice: Payments for answers will end 4/10/2017. Click for more info.
You have new items in your feed. Click to view.
Question and answer
Q: Which Supreme Court ruling applied the principles, regarding the exclusionary rule, developed in Weeks v. U.S. to trials in state courts?
A: The primary purpose of the Exclusionary Rule "is to deter future unlawful police conduct and thereby effectuate the guarantee of the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures." (United States v. Calandra (1974) 414 U.S. [ 338 [38 L.Ed.2nd 561]; Illinois v. Krull (1987) 480 U.S. 340 [94 L.Ed.2nd 364]; People v. Robles (2000) 23 Cal.4th 789, 799.) "?[T]he "prime purpose" of the
[exclusionary] rule, if not the sole one, "is to deter future unlawful police conduct." [Citations]' (Citations)" (Italics added; People v. Sanders (2003) 31 Cal.4th 318, 324.) It is also the purpose of the Fourth Amendment to "safeguard the privacy and security of individuals against arbitrary invasions by government officials." (Camera v. Municipal Court (1967) 387 U.S. 523, 528 [18 L.Ed.2nd 930, 935].) An otherwise lawful seizure can violate the Fourth Amendment if it is executed in an unreasonable manner. (United States v. Alverez-Tejeda (9th Cir. 2007, citing United States v. Jacobsen (1984) 466 U.S. 109, 124 [80 L.Ed.2d 85].) Evidence illegally obtained by private persons, acting in a private capacity, is not subject to the Exclusionary Rule. (See Krauss v. Superior Court (1971) 5 Cal.3rd 418, 421; People v. North (1981) 29 Cal.3rd 509, 514; Jones v. Kmart Corp. (1998) 17 Cal.App.4th 329, 332.) Even a peace officer, when off-duty and acting in a private capacity, may be found to have acted as a private citizen. (See People v. Wachter (1976) 58 Cal.App.3rd 911, 920, 922.) However, the Exclusionary Rule is not intended to prevent all police misconduct or as a remedy for all police errors. "The use of the exclusionary rule is an exceptional remedy typically reserved for violations of constitutional rights." (United States v. Smith (9th Cir. 1999) 196 F.3rd 1034, 1040.) Not all courts are in agreement that such a remedy is reserved exclusively for constitutional violations. (See discussion in United States v. Lombera-Camorlinga (9th Cir. 2000) 206 F.3rd 882, 886-887, and in the dissenting opinion, p. 893.) A civil rights "action under (42 U.S.C.) section 1983 "encompasses violations of federal statutory law as well as constitutional law." (Maine v. Thiboutot (1980) 448 U.S. 1, 4, . . . ]
mayngls_15|Points 400|
Question
Asked 8/13/2013 12:11:57 PM
0 Answers/Comments
Get an answer
New answers
Rating

There are no new answers.

Comments

There are no comments.

Add an answer or comment
Log in or sign up first.
26,398,978 questions answered
Weegy Stuff
S
P
P
L
P
P
P
Points 124 [Total 1860] Ratings 3 Comments 94 Invitations 0 Offline
S
Points 57 [Total 68] Ratings 4 Comments 17 Invitations 0 Offline
S
Points 30 [Total 30] Ratings 3 Comments 0 Invitations 0 Offline
S
Points 16 [Total 16] Ratings 0 Comments 6 Invitations 1 Offline
S
L
Points 15 [Total 112] Ratings 0 Comments 15 Invitations 0 Offline
S
Points 10 [Total 10] Ratings 1 Comments 0 Invitations 0 Offline
S
Points 10 [Total 10] Ratings 1 Comments 0 Invitations 0 Offline
S
Points 10 [Total 10] Ratings 1 Comments 0 Invitations 0 Offline
S
Points 5 [Total 5] Ratings 0 Comments 5 Invitations 0 Offline
S
Points 3 [Total 3] Ratings 0 Comments 3 Invitations 0 Offline
* Excludes moderators and previous
winners (Include)
Home | Contact | Blog | About | Terms | Privacy | © Purple Inc.