In this video, Keith Hughes covered the exclusionary rule. This rule, in simple terms, is that evidence cannot be obtained illegally. In the Mapp v. Ohio case, Dollree Mapp was believed to be hiding an accused bombing suspect in her home. Police brought a search warrant and waited for Mapp to open the door. When she did not allow them into her house, they entered the home with force. After placing the search warrant underneath her clothing, Mapp was handcuffed for being belligerent. The police then searched her home, discovering pornography and betting slips. Mapp was arrested, however the betting slips and obscene pictures recovered were thrown out of the case.
Let’s use a homicide as an example. Joe kills Jane, dismembers her body, and throws her corpse into the river. If the investigators are questioning Joe and he willingly gives them the information on what happened and where Jane’s remains are, that is completely legal. However, if Joe declines and wants to lawyer up, the detectives have to stop asking questions until Joe’s lawyer arrives; there is nothing that can be done. Also, if an investigator were to use physical force to get a confession (i.e. “beating up” Joe), that would be in violation of the exclusionary rule and that evidence would not be admissible. Keith Hughes did a decent job in further explaining the exclusionary rule; I think anyone who did not understand will have a better handle on this rule. Gators123
That was an interesting example and it is a good one too. I am glad that the Supreme Court ended some of the big questions that came up during the Mapp case, like defining further on what they can or can’t do if they have a search warrant; like if you were going into a house to see if they had a stolen car you can’t see what they have in the kitchen cabinets. Birdman123
It was an interesting video; Keith Hughes’s videos are always entertaining to me for some reason. The video talks about the court case Mapp v. Ohio where police entered her house saying that they had a warrant to search her house, there really wasn’t one, they then arrested her for being belligerent after she stuffed their “warrant” down her shirt and then while in the house it was discovered that she had some pornographic material that was obscene and they tried to pin her on that charge too; talk about having a bad day. The case went up to the Supreme Court to rule if there should be a change in a few ways about what it means about having a warrant and what happens to evidence they find if they unlawfully enter without permission or a warrant. It also talks about the ways to get around needing a warrant, for instance, he mentions the plain view doctrine that basically says if the officer sees it in plain view then he doesn’t need a warrant or anything to enter and arrest you because he can prove that you are doing something illegal that he can clearly see. Birdman123
I agree with you that he had a very interesting way of giving scenarios in how to get around having and not having a search warrant. I also agree with the plain view doctrine and that the cop should not need a warrant if he spots something illegal such as narcotics out in the open. Sparks123
I also agree with Birdman and Sparks about not needing a warrant if something is in plain view. However, in Dollree Mapp's case, you know that those officers had to have been opening drawers or closets to find the pornography. Had they actually had a warrant for the accused bomber, opening closets or looking under the beds would have been legitimate. Unfortunately it was never proven that there was really a warrant; they could have just grabbed some paper from a notebook to give it the illusion of a search warrant. Gators123
In this video Keith Hughes did a very good job of breaking down the fourth amendment as well as the things that go into it. The fourth amendment does not specifically say anything about privacy which I think is wrong in some cases. In the case Mapp vs. Ohio, the officers did not have a warrant but came in anyway, when she demanded to see the warrant the officers flashed a piece of paper she then grabbed the paper and put it in her clothing by her bosom. They then went to arrest her, she resisted arrest and now this gave the officers “free range” of the house. They did not find anything pertaining to what they were looking for although, they found a suit case full of pornography. In my opinion what the Supreme Court did was good. Just because they found evidence against her without a warrant doesn’t mean they should be able to use it against her. However, I do agree with the plain view doctrine. If an officer approaches a car and sees you have a bag of cocaine in the back seat sitting out in plain view then I feel it is necessary to search and seize whatever is illegal in the car for evidence. Sparks123
Yes, I agree with that. The officers basically tricked her into letting them inside her house. Ultimately they had violated this woman's rights. Yes, they found illegal matter on her property, but that illegal property was found on illegal terms. I think the ruling was fair. The woman is still just as guilty of committing the crime, but couldn't be fairly charged since the materials were found without a legal warrant. gabegun123
Keith Hughes did a very good job on this video he explained the fourth amendment very well. He explains how the Mapp V Ohio case had a big impact on it after the officers did not have a warrant to enter the property. Elite123
I agree with your statement about how the supreme court did a good thing during the Mapp v Ohio case, but I don't agree with your statement that they shouldn't be able to use plain view as part of the exclusionary rule. I think that if it is in plain sight you should be able to use it in a case if you were intending to keep it hidden and not get caught with it you shouldn't have it out in the open for other people to see unless you want them to know you have it. Explorer123
This video seemed to be far more "by the book" than the previous. This video was more about the legal aspects of the fourth amendment. It was interesting to hear about the Mapp V Ohio case. The exclusionary rule came about because of this. I had previously known a little about the Exclusionary rule, but there were a few things that I didn't know about it. To start, I was aware of the plain view exception. No warrant is needed if something illegal is discovered in plain site. I was not aware of the "good faith" exception and the "inevitable discovery" exception. These seem to be holes in the exclusionary rule but they are reasonable. I think if the illegal matter is in plain view or is inevitably going to be found it very well should be acceptable in a court of law. I think that the "scent" exception is also a good hole in the law. If a vehicle smells of illegal substance and a trained police dog hits on it, theirs more than likely that illegal substance in the vehicle. gabegun123
I agree with just about everything you said i think the exclusionary is a very good rule to have I just hope those in law enforcement follow all the amendments not just the one that get them there suspect. patient 123
I would have to agree that the plain view rule is great. When it comes to applying the rule of scent, things could be tricky. I like how you stated that if a dog hits on a scent in the car there a good chance. I think that the police department should take advantage of the use of dogs. Silverline123
Again the 4th amendment rights were suppose to be used to protect peoples rights especially people of color and as you here in the mapp vs Ohio it did no such thing for her they illegally went in that women home down playing her fourth amendments and completely ignoring the fourteenth amendments that was incorporated in the fourth amendments perfect example of how peoples rights are still being violated still today. I am totally on board with the exclusionary rule and if people in law enforcement properly used the amendments and rules law enforcement would be made a little easier and maybe they would have cases flop and more people would trust in our system. patient 123
Pretty much either way the police are going to search your belongings. If you say no then that is a great reason for them to get a warrant just to come back and see what you are hiding. I suppose in some situations the police could be unfair and search you for no reason at all. Yet how are they suppose to know weather or not you have anything on you? Are they really suppose to just take your word for it? It is their job to check these things.
The video does a great job of explaining the Fourth Amendment and the impact the Fourteenth has on Federalism, using Mapp V Ohio as the catalyst. This case sets a precedent that if a search was illegal, then everything found in that search would be inadmissible in court. This seems to strengthen individual rights and protections from government. The exclusions are interesting. Plain view seems common sense and if you are doing something illegal where others can see, you should be arrested if for nothing else, for being stupid. Good Faith should cover those who execute the warrant but if the reason for the warrant was tainted, should not the evidence found also be considered tainted? I have more trouble with the concept of inevitable discovery. Who determines whether it would have been discovered or not? It seems this is more of a judgement call and predictably prosecutors and defense attorneys would differ on this issue. Humvee123
This video was very informative and Keith Hughes is entertaining to watch he goes over the Mapp v Ohio case when the officers did not have a warrant and went into the house to search when she asked for a warrant they flashed a piece of paper and she stuffed it down her shirt. They where looking for a bomb but they didn't find anything like that, but they did find a suit case of child pornography. Mapp v Ohio created the exclusionary rule which incorporated the 4th and 14th amendment there are some exceptions to it such as plain view if a cop see's the crime being committed he can search even if they smell something or a K-9 spots it. Some other deceptions are the good faith exceptional (US V Leon) or the Inevitable discovery(Nix V Williams). Elite123
This video lost my attention quite a bit. I believe people these days make things way too complicated. There is definitely an easier and simpler way to explain the concept of a warrant. The police are not allowed to search your person, home, car, or other possessions without a warrant. The only exception is if they can see, smell, or a dog finds evidence out in the open. Also again if you don't have anything to hide there is no reason to fight an officer trying to look at your belongings. Just like in his example, she refused to let them search her house and they ended up finding pornography. If you refuse you are practically saying you are guilty. VT012
I agree that things are rather complicated. While we can say that failure to consent to a search does not mean you are guilty, it definitely puts that thought in the back of someone's mind. In my personal experience I was asked multiple times if they could search my car even though I was just sitting outside of it at a local park in the middle of the day. Naturally I consented as I knew there was nothing in there and it moved the interaction along a lot faster. Acquainted123
I would agree that denying a search makes it seem like you are definitely guilty of crime but it should not be like that in todays society. But I do not agree with you that if you don't have anything on you that you shouldn't deny a search because you are suppose to have a right to your own privacy and when you just brush it off and let an officer search you it makes them think that they can just keep doing it which is probably the reason that police are so bad about it these days.
I think that an officer should have a warrant to search your belongings. That being said I would have to agree with you on the fact there is no reason to fight the officers. You can always pursue the issue later with the courts or the department. Silverline123
This was a very well done video on the Mapp Vs Ohio case and the fourth amendment. The idea of evidence being in plain view being acceptable seems like more of a common sense process than a technical one, but seems like it is emphasized in order to avoid loopholes and abuse. The ability for smell being used to search a vehicle also seems like one that is hard to control because while one officer could honestly smell marijuana coming from a passing car with the windows down, another officer could lie and say he did and use that. Searches initiated via a dog signaling a car has illegal narcotics also seems shifty as the dog can be trained to bark or scratch in certain places in order to have a reason to search. Acquainted123
I agree with you, I also think that it has a lot to do with common sense, it is pretty straight forward if you see drugs or anything illegal then search the area for further evidence. However I’m sure that many of police officers have taken that to far and just said they smell drugs when they really do not. GRUNT123
I agree with you common sense is needed to determine certain factors pertaining to a particular case of plain view doctrine. Yet, common sense is something that many lack in a society such as the one we live in today. Forensic123
I agree with you common sense is needed to determine certain factors pertaining to a particular case of plain view doctrine. Yet, common sense is something that many lack in a society such as the one we live in today. 1) Many times you find a person that is so smart they are dumb. (Those who think they know it all, but do not.) 2)Those who are just extremely book smart with no common sense to be found. 3)Finally you have those who have all the common sense in the world, yet are not the most intelligent or knowledgeable person at all. Forensic123
This video was very entertaining. I really like how straight forward the 4 amendment is and how he describes it in his video. And I also agree with the 4 amendment, I think that police should have a search warrant to enter a house of someone in the wrong. The reason I think this is because there are many mistakes that could happen of police entering a house of a family that is not in the wrong at all because they gathered or have received the wrong information. As stated in the video there are many holes in the exclusionary rule such as plain view and even smell, or if the police find a map to the dead body that it would have been discovered anyways. I think the smell rule is great because some drugs have a strong smell to them and it’s a distinct smell, and for the smells humans can not smell the police dogs do a great job detecting. GRUNT123
Once again this video was entertaining and insightful. I have previously learned in other classes about the Mapp v Ohio case and think that the way they barged into her house was against her rights. They didn't even arrest her for what they were searching for because they didn't even find anything to do with a bomb just illegal betting slips and several obscene books. The exclusionary rule is a rule with a few exceptions. Even if the officer doesn't have a warrant and they can see it in plain view sight they can still use that evidence against you. Also they can use inevitable discovery meaning even if you didn't tell them about it they would have found it anyway which is good for some cases because it helps the detectives solve cases with help legally. The fact that these unfortunate cases had to happen for those to be exceptions to the exclusionary rule is kind of sad and scary. Explorer123
I figured perhaps I was the only one who found humor in Mr. Hughes Explorer123. The plain view doctrine allows an officer to search and collect evidence within his or her immediate sight. Without having to produce a search warrant. Very interesting factor within law enforcement, protected by the fourth amendment. Forensic123
To begin, Mr. Hughes is hilarious! Yet he explains the exclusionary rule in full brevity as evidence that can not be obtained illegally. Then he read aloud and gives you a clear and full understanding of the Fourth Amendment. Which when broken down it does not state within the amendment ones privacy. That small piece of any person that we all feel as though we are entitled to. Then comes along illegal and fictitious search warrants. In the Mapp vs. Ohio case the cops told the woman that had a warrant to search the place. Once they were in they very unprofessional by sticking the fictitious warrant down her shirt. Therafter they combed through the house after she began using very vulgar language with the officers and found porn and gambling slips. Once the court case begin the info was found inadmissible, and was unable to be used as evidence. Certain situations can become very sticky pertaining to the Fourth Amendment especially if you are not fully aware of what all is included. Through in this video I was given a full understanding of the base terms defined within the amendment. Forensic123
This video really dives deep into a couple of cases that really show how the 4th amendment has been molded over the years. I love his explanation of how they took the beginning part of the 14th amendment and essentially slapped in on the 4th amendment. I think the Plainview clause is a little much though because it is one thing to see a crime or see something in plain sight but going as far as being able to smell something is a little too far. All a police officer has to do is say he smells a drug in your car and he can search it. Just seems like it could be an unfair way to take advantage of searching people whenever they want.
In this video, Keith Hughes covered the exclusionary rule. This rule, in simple terms, is that evidence cannot be obtained illegally. In the Mapp v. Ohio case, Dollree Mapp was believed to be hiding an accused bombing suspect in her home. Police brought a search warrant and waited for Mapp to open the door. When she did not allow them into her house, they entered the home with force. After placing the search warrant underneath her clothing, Mapp was handcuffed for being belligerent. The police then searched her home, discovering pornography and betting slips. Mapp was arrested, however the betting slips and obscene pictures recovered were thrown out of the case.
ReplyDeleteLet’s use a homicide as an example. Joe kills Jane, dismembers her body, and throws her corpse into the river. If the investigators are questioning Joe and he willingly gives them the information on what happened and where Jane’s remains are, that is completely legal. However, if Joe declines and wants to lawyer up, the detectives have to stop asking questions until Joe’s lawyer arrives; there is nothing that can be done. Also, if an investigator were to use physical force to get a confession (i.e. “beating up” Joe), that would be in violation of the exclusionary rule and that evidence would not be admissible. Keith Hughes did a decent job in further explaining the exclusionary rule; I think anyone who did not understand will have a better handle on this rule. Gators123
That was an interesting example and it is a good one too. I am glad that the Supreme Court ended some of the big questions that came up during the Mapp case, like defining further on what they can or can’t do if they have a search warrant; like if you were going into a house to see if they had a stolen car you can’t see what they have in the kitchen cabinets. Birdman123
DeleteIt was an interesting video; Keith Hughes’s videos are always entertaining to me for some reason. The video talks about the court case Mapp v. Ohio where police entered her house saying that they had a warrant to search her house, there really wasn’t one, they then arrested her for being belligerent after she stuffed their “warrant” down her shirt and then while in the house it was discovered that she had some pornographic material that was obscene and they tried to pin her on that charge too; talk about having a bad day. The case went up to the Supreme Court to rule if there should be a change in a few ways about what it means about having a warrant and what happens to evidence they find if they unlawfully enter without permission or a warrant. It also talks about the ways to get around needing a warrant, for instance, he mentions the plain view doctrine that basically says if the officer sees it in plain view then he doesn’t need a warrant or anything to enter and arrest you because he can prove that you are doing something illegal that he can clearly see. Birdman123
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that he had a very interesting way of giving scenarios in how to get around having and not having a search warrant. I also agree with the plain view doctrine and that the cop should not need a warrant if he spots something illegal such as narcotics out in the open. Sparks123
DeleteI also agree with Birdman and Sparks about not needing a warrant if something is in plain view. However, in Dollree Mapp's case, you know that those officers had to have been opening drawers or closets to find the pornography. Had they actually had a warrant for the accused bomber, opening closets or looking under the beds would have been legitimate. Unfortunately it was never proven that there was really a warrant; they could have just grabbed some paper from a notebook to give it the illusion of a search warrant. Gators123
DeleteIn this video Keith Hughes did a very good job of breaking down the fourth amendment as well as the things that go into it. The fourth amendment does not specifically say anything about privacy which I think is wrong in some cases. In the case Mapp vs. Ohio, the officers did not have a warrant but came in anyway, when she demanded to see the warrant the officers flashed a piece of paper she then grabbed the paper and put it in her clothing by her bosom. They then went to arrest her, she resisted arrest and now this gave the officers “free range” of the house. They did not find anything pertaining to what they were looking for although, they found a suit case full of pornography. In my opinion what the Supreme Court did was good. Just because they found evidence against her without a warrant doesn’t mean they should be able to use it against her. However, I do agree with the plain view doctrine. If an officer approaches a car and sees you have a bag of cocaine in the back seat sitting out in plain view then I feel it is necessary to search and seize whatever is illegal in the car for evidence. Sparks123
ReplyDeleteYes, I agree with that. The officers basically tricked her into letting them inside her house. Ultimately they had violated this woman's rights. Yes, they found illegal matter on her property, but that illegal property was found on illegal terms. I think the ruling was fair. The woman is still just as guilty of committing the crime, but couldn't be fairly charged since the materials were found without a legal warrant. gabegun123
DeleteKeith Hughes did a very good job on this video he explained the fourth amendment very well. He explains how the Mapp V Ohio case had a big impact on it after the officers did not have a warrant to enter the property. Elite123
DeleteI agree with your statement about how the supreme court did a good thing during the Mapp v Ohio case, but I don't agree with your statement that they shouldn't be able to use plain view as part of the exclusionary rule. I think that if it is in plain sight you should be able to use it in a case if you were intending to keep it hidden and not get caught with it you shouldn't have it out in the open for other people to see unless you want them to know you have it.
DeleteExplorer123
This video seemed to be far more "by the book" than the previous. This video was more about the legal aspects of the fourth amendment. It was interesting to hear about the Mapp V Ohio case. The exclusionary rule came about because of this. I had previously known a little about the Exclusionary rule, but there were a few things that I didn't know about it. To start, I was aware of the plain view exception. No warrant is needed if something illegal is discovered in plain site. I was not aware of the "good faith" exception and the "inevitable discovery" exception. These seem to be holes in the exclusionary rule but they are reasonable. I think if the illegal matter is in plain view or is inevitably going to be found it very well should be acceptable in a court of law. I think that the "scent" exception is also a good hole in the law. If a vehicle smells of illegal substance and a trained police dog hits on it, theirs more than likely that illegal substance in the vehicle. gabegun123
ReplyDeleteI agree with just about everything you said i think the exclusionary is a very good rule to have I just hope those in law enforcement follow all the amendments not just the one that get them there suspect. patient 123
DeleteI would have to agree that the plain view rule is great. When it comes to applying the rule of scent, things could be tricky. I like how you stated that if a dog hits on a scent in the car there a good chance. I think that the police department should take advantage of the use of dogs. Silverline123
DeleteAgain the 4th amendment rights were suppose to be used to protect peoples rights especially people of color and as you here in the mapp vs Ohio it did no such thing for her they illegally went in that women home down playing her fourth amendments and completely ignoring the fourteenth amendments that was incorporated in the fourth amendments perfect example of how peoples rights are still being violated still today. I am totally on board with the exclusionary rule and if people in law enforcement properly used the amendments and rules law enforcement would be made a little easier and maybe they would have cases flop and more people would trust in our system. patient 123
ReplyDeletePretty much either way the police are going to search your belongings. If you say no then that is a great reason for them to get a warrant just to come back and see what you are hiding. I suppose in some situations the police could be unfair and search you for no reason at all. Yet how are they suppose to know weather or not you have anything on you? Are they really suppose to just take your word for it? It is their job to check these things.
DeleteThe video does a great job of explaining the Fourth Amendment and the impact the Fourteenth has on Federalism, using Mapp V Ohio as the catalyst. This case sets a precedent that if a search was illegal, then everything found in that search would be inadmissible in court. This seems to strengthen individual rights and protections from government.
ReplyDeleteThe exclusions are interesting. Plain view seems common sense and if you are doing something illegal where others can see, you should be arrested if for nothing else, for being stupid. Good Faith should cover those who execute the warrant but if the reason for the warrant was tainted, should not the evidence found also be considered tainted? I have more trouble with the concept of inevitable discovery. Who determines whether it would have been discovered or not? It seems this is more of a judgement call and predictably prosecutors and defense attorneys would differ on this issue. Humvee123
This video was very informative and Keith Hughes is entertaining to watch he goes over the Mapp v Ohio case when the officers did not have a warrant and went into the house to search when she asked for a warrant they flashed a piece of paper and she stuffed it down her shirt. They where looking for a bomb but they didn't find anything like that, but they did find a suit case of child pornography. Mapp v Ohio created the exclusionary rule which incorporated the 4th and 14th amendment there are some exceptions to it such as plain view if a cop see's the crime being committed he can search even if they smell something or a K-9 spots it. Some other deceptions are the good faith exceptional (US V Leon) or the Inevitable discovery(Nix V Williams). Elite123
ReplyDeleteThis video lost my attention quite a bit. I believe people these days make things way too complicated. There is definitely an easier and simpler way to explain the concept of a warrant. The police are not allowed to search your person, home, car, or other possessions without a warrant. The only exception is if they can see, smell, or a dog finds evidence out in the open. Also again if you don't have anything to hide there is no reason to fight an officer trying to look at your belongings. Just like in his example, she refused to let them search her house and they ended up finding pornography. If you refuse you are practically saying you are guilty. VT012
ReplyDeleteI agree that things are rather complicated. While we can say that failure to consent to a search does not mean you are guilty, it definitely puts that thought in the back of someone's mind. In my personal experience I was asked multiple times if they could search my car even though I was just sitting outside of it at a local park in the middle of the day. Naturally I consented as I knew there was nothing in there and it moved the interaction along a lot faster. Acquainted123
DeleteI would agree that denying a search makes it seem like you are definitely guilty of crime but it should not be like that in todays society. But I do not agree with you that if you don't have anything on you that you shouldn't deny a search because you are suppose to have a right to your own privacy and when you just brush it off and let an officer search you it makes them think that they can just keep doing it which is probably the reason that police are so bad about it these days.
Deletewutang123
I think that an officer should have a warrant to search your belongings. That being said I would have to agree with you on the fact there is no reason to fight the officers. You can always pursue the issue later with the courts or the department. Silverline123
DeleteThis was a very well done video on the Mapp Vs Ohio case and the fourth amendment. The idea of evidence being in plain view being acceptable seems like more of a common sense process than a technical one, but seems like it is emphasized in order to avoid loopholes and abuse. The ability for smell being used to search a vehicle also seems like one that is hard to control because while one officer could honestly smell marijuana coming from a passing car with the windows down, another officer could lie and say he did and use that. Searches initiated via a dog signaling a car has illegal narcotics also seems shifty as the dog can be trained to bark or scratch in certain places in order to have a reason to search. Acquainted123
ReplyDeleteI agree with you, I also think that it has a lot to do with common sense, it is pretty straight forward if you see drugs or anything illegal then search the area for further evidence. However I’m sure that many of police officers have taken that to far and just said they smell drugs when they really do not.
DeleteGRUNT123
I agree with you common sense is needed to determine certain factors pertaining to a particular case of plain view doctrine. Yet, common sense is something that many lack in a society such as the one we live in today. Forensic123
DeleteI agree with you common sense is needed to determine certain factors pertaining to a particular case of plain view doctrine. Yet, common sense is something that many lack in a society such as the one we live in today. 1) Many times you find a person that is so smart they are dumb. (Those who think they know it all, but do not.) 2)Those who are just extremely book smart with no common sense to be found. 3)Finally you have those who have all the common sense in the world, yet are not the most intelligent or knowledgeable person at all. Forensic123
DeleteThis video was very entertaining. I really like how straight forward the 4 amendment is and how he describes it in his video. And I also agree with the 4 amendment, I think that police should have a search warrant to enter a house of someone in the wrong. The reason I think this is because there are many mistakes that could happen of police entering a house of a family that is not in the wrong at all because they gathered or have received the wrong information. As stated in the video there are many holes in the exclusionary rule such as plain view and even smell, or if the police find a map to the dead body that it would have been discovered anyways. I think the smell rule is great because some drugs have a strong smell to them and it’s a distinct smell, and for the smells humans can not smell the police dogs do a great job detecting.
ReplyDeleteGRUNT123
Once again this video was entertaining and insightful. I have previously learned in other classes about the Mapp v Ohio case and think that the way they barged into her house was against her rights. They didn't even arrest her for what they were searching for because they didn't even find anything to do with a bomb just illegal betting slips and several obscene books. The exclusionary rule is a rule with a few exceptions. Even if the officer doesn't have a warrant and they can see it in plain view sight they can still use that evidence against you. Also they can use inevitable discovery meaning even if you didn't tell them about it they would have found it anyway which is good for some cases because it helps the detectives solve cases with help legally. The fact that these unfortunate cases had to happen for those to be exceptions to the exclusionary rule is kind of sad and scary.
ReplyDeleteExplorer123
I figured perhaps I was the only one who found humor in Mr. Hughes Explorer123. The plain view doctrine allows an officer to search and collect evidence within his or her immediate sight. Without having to produce a search warrant. Very interesting factor within law enforcement, protected by the fourth amendment. Forensic123
DeleteTo begin, Mr. Hughes is hilarious! Yet he explains the exclusionary rule in full brevity as evidence that can not be obtained illegally. Then he read aloud and gives you a clear and full understanding of the Fourth Amendment. Which when broken down it does not state within the amendment ones privacy. That small piece of any person that we all feel as though we are entitled to. Then comes along illegal and fictitious search warrants. In the Mapp vs. Ohio case the cops told the woman that had a warrant to search the place. Once they were in they very unprofessional by sticking the fictitious warrant down her shirt. Therafter they combed through the house after she began using very vulgar language with the officers and found porn and gambling slips. Once the court case begin the info was found inadmissible, and was unable to be used as evidence. Certain situations can become very sticky pertaining to the Fourth Amendment especially if you are not fully aware of what all is included. Through in this video I was given a full understanding of the base terms defined within the amendment. Forensic123
ReplyDeleteThis video really dives deep into a couple of cases that really show how the 4th amendment has been molded over the years. I love his explanation of how they took the beginning part of the 14th amendment and essentially slapped in on the 4th amendment. I think the Plainview clause is a little much though because it is one thing to see a crime or see something in plain sight but going as far as being able to smell something is a little too far. All a police officer has to do is say he smells a drug in your car and he can search it. Just seems like it could be an unfair way to take advantage of searching people whenever they want.
ReplyDeletewutang123