Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Law
Evidence Illegally Seized By Private Persons Excluded From Criminal Prosecution--People V. Mccomb, Michigan Law Review
Evidence Illegally Seized By Private Persons Excluded From Criminal Prosecution--People V. Mccomb, Michigan Law Review
Michigan Law Review
At common law, illegally seized evidence was admissible on the theory that the nature of the seizure did not necessarily affect the probative value of the evidence. However, in 1914 the United States Supreme Court, in order to protect the fourth amendment's guarantee of freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, adopted a rule excluding from federal courts evidence illegally seized by federal officials. In 1961, the scope of this rule was extended by Mapp v. Ohio, which held that all evidence obtained in violation of the fourth amendment is inadmissible in state courts. However, the Mapp doctrine applies only …
Controlling The Police: The Judge's Role In Making And Reviewing Law Enforcement Decisions, Wayne R. Lafave, Frank J. Remington
Controlling The Police: The Judge's Role In Making And Reviewing Law Enforcement Decisions, Wayne R. Lafave, Frank J. Remington
Michigan Law Review
We have chosen to focus here upon judicial involvement (1) in determining whether arrest and search warrants should issue and (2) in reviewing such decisions after they have been executed (and, perhaps, made) by police officials. A comparison of some recent findings respecting the actual practice at the trial level with the "ideal" as set forth in appellate opinions may allow some conclusions to be drawn both as to the present effectiveness of appellate rulings on these subjects and as to the ultimate feasibility of further implementation of those rulings. Finally, since the exclusionary rule is, theoretically at least, one …