New York v. Quarles (1984)

Full Answer Section

    Reasoning The Court began by reviewing the history of the exclusionary rule. The rule was first established in federal courts in the early 20th century. However, the Court had previously held that the rule did not apply to state courts. The Court reasoned that the exclusionary rule is necessary to deter unlawful police searches and seizures. The Court explained that the rule "is a way of making effective the Fourth Amendment's guarantee." The Court also noted that the rule is necessary to protect the integrity of the judicial process. If evidence obtained through an unlawful search or seizure is admitted in court, the defendant may be convicted even if they are innocent. The Court also rejected the state's argument that the exclusionary rule would have a negative impact on law enforcement. The Court explained that the rule would not prevent law enforcement officers from doing their jobs. The rule would simply require officers to obtain warrants before conducting searches and seizures. Conclusion The Supreme Court held that the exclusionary rule applies to state courts through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court reasoned that the rule is necessary to deter unlawful police searches and seizures and to protect the integrity of the judicial process. Case Brief: Miranda v. Arizona (1966) Facts Ernesto Miranda was arrested and interrogated by police officers. Miranda was not informed of his Miranda rights, which are the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney. Miranda confessed to the crime and was subsequently convicted. Issue Whether confessions obtained without informing the suspect of their Miranda rights are admissible in court. Holding No. The Supreme Court held that confessions obtained without informing the suspect of their Miranda rights are not admissible in court. The Court reasoned that the Miranda rights are necessary to protect the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. Reasoning The Court began by explaining that the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination is a fundamental right. The Court explained that the right is "designed to prevent the use of coercive practices to obtain confessions that may be unreliable." The Court then explained that the Miranda rights are necessary to protect the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. The Court explained that the Miranda rights "advise the suspect of his right to remain silent and of the fact that any statement he makes may be used against him in court." The Court also explained that the Miranda rights "give the suspect an opportunity to consult with an attorney before he is interrogated." The Court concluded that confessions obtained without informing the suspect of their Miranda rights are not admissible in court. The Court reasoned that such confessions are not voluntary and therefore violate the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. Conclusion The Supreme Court held that confessions obtained without informing the suspect of their Miranda rights are not admissible in court. The Court reasoned that the Miranda rights are necessary to protect the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. Case Brief: Terry v. Ohio (1968) Facts Police officers observed John Terry and two other men standing on a street corner in Cleveland, Ohio. The officers believed that the men were planning a robbery. The officers approached the men and patted them down for weapons. The officers found a gun on Terry and subsequently arrested him. Terry was subsequently convicted of carrying a concealed weapon. Issue Whether the police officers' stop-and-frisk of Terry was constitutional. Holding Yes. The Supreme Court held that the police officers' stop-and-frisk of Terry was constitutional. The Court reasoned that the officers had reasonable suspicion to believe that Terry was committing a crime and that he was armed. Reasoning The Court began by explaining that the Fourth Amendment protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures. However, the Court also explained that the Fourth Amendment is not absolute. The Court explained that police officers may conduct warrantless stops and frisks of  

Sample Answer

   

Case Brief: Mapp v. Ohio (1961)

Facts

Dollree Mapp was arrested in her home by Cleveland police officers without a warrant. The officers were looking for a suspect in a bombing and believed that he was hiding in Mapp's home. During the search, the officers found pornographic materials. Mapp was subsequently charged with possessing obscene materials.

Issue

Whether the exclusionary rule applies to state courts.

Holding

Yes. The Supreme Court held that the exclusionary rule applies to state courts through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court reasoned that the exclusionary rule is necessary to deter unlawful police searches and seizures, regardless of whether the search or seizure was conducted by federal or state law enforcement officers.