Hi - thanks for looking me up!
Yes, the "exclusionary rule" stems from the 4th Amendment and it is intended to protect citizens from illegal searches and seizures. Also, the exclusionary rule also provides a remedy for a defendant when law enforcement illegally gathers evidence in violation of the Fifth Amendment in the Bill of Rights.
If an investigation involves collecting evidence illegally, that evidence is inadmissible at trial.
Most of these cases stem from an illegal search and seizure, which would be a break down in procedure.
hi you doing esq. adams
Just fine, Thanks. And you?
glad to hear im ok
would that only deal with the forbidden fruit rule or any procedural violation
that an officer has blundered on
Also, the exclusionary rule is still applicable law, and it stems from the federal constitution, but all state constitutions and subsequent state laws maintain this rule.
The exclusionary rule generally just deals with "fruit of the poisonous tree" and not every procedural violation.
The exclusionary rule is the term if there's an issue of illegally obtained evidence by the prosecution/law enforcement.
ok so when that justice made that statement he was referring to the poisonos tree
i also read were in a case law were trial by ambush are not accepted and
I haven't read the case, but yes that should be the case.....The statement that the "constable has blundered" would likely mean just that. I'll take a look at the case and let you know for sure.
Here's a quick summary of the case:
FACTS: A police officer arrested defendant on a charge that he had stolen an overcoat. The crime, if committed, was petit larceny, a misdemeanor. Defendant when taken into custody was in the hall of his boarding house. After making the arrest, the officer, without a warrant, entered defendant's room and searched it. The search produced a bag containing a blackjack and a hat. Defendant was acquitted of larceny, but indicted as a second offender for the possession of the weapon. On appeal, the court held that the arrest was not lawful, so there was no lawful arrest to which the search could be an incident. The evidence against defendant was the outcome of a trespass, and the officer could have been held responsible civilly, and perhaps criminally, but his testimony was not thereby incompetent. Regarding the blackjack, as it was contraband, it could be offered in evidence without trenching upon the privilege in respect of self-incrimination whether seizure was made with warrant or without, and as the bag and hat were offered in evidence with it, all were admissible. The court held that the due process clause requirement of the Fourteenth Amendment was not violated.OUTCOME: The judgment of conviction was affirmed.
So yes, the case was about fruit of the poisonous tree and the inadmissibility of illegally obtained evidence.
i also read were in a case law were trial by ambush are not accepted and that the prosecution disclose all material in there possession and control, would this be a violation if these things occurred and would it be an abuse of discretion if the judge allowed it
wouldn't this prove also that a person was not aware that thier was going to be a trial because the state is to produce the witness list for the trial
i read this in Parlapiano v. District Court In & For Tenth Jud. Dist., 491 P. 2d 965 - Colo: Supreme Court 1971
We adopt the reasoning of Wimberly, and of American Bar Association Standards Relating to Discovery and Procedure Before Trial, § 2.1(a), which reads as follows:
"(a) Except as is otherwise provided as to matters not subject to disclosure (section 2.6) and protective orders (section 4.4), the prosecuting attorney shall disclose to defense counsel the following material and information within his possession or control:
it doesnt mention he has to ask, however; a person could ask if they were aware that a trial is coming up this would give them the incentive to prepare for the trial would you agree?
ok in ohio is it different
it stated the rule is from the canons of the bar association
well im just reviewing a case were a guy i know was seven pretrial he was giving a yellow paper were the date for him to return on nothing more he griped about the speedy trial throughout procedures on the next date they start putting together a jury
the court never entered anything
scheduling hearing but another date pretrial
last one it was past 90 day stat period they dismissed his motion to dismiss on the speedy trial bases a went on with trial
thats the problem it was explained officers appeared at last few hearing but because he wouldn't cop out they kept on postponing it
and they have it written in the journal entry that he requested but he didnt he never did he kept contesting it
i mean it was not explained
and the officers he was going to get witnesses was not available for him
because the never gave an accurate time
but from what i mentioned if its correct about him saying on the record he objects and asserting his right that can be found on the transcript and the journal entry reflecting something else would that be abuse of discretion in your opinion
esq. adams wanted to ask about when you file a subpoena for phone records, how would you find out what there phone carrier is to serve subpoena
got you and if they lie thats against them becuase they have to answer truthfully
can you request it in productions
i have a law book by the name constitutional criminal pocedure, my question is about the miranda rights i read on arrest warrant the officer is to inform you about the warrant and read you your rights, if an officer had a warrant but never informed the person they were under arrest and took them in a room by themselves and questioned them incommunicado about a ticket do they remember it never saying theres a warrant or there under arrest, after the questions the person ask am i under arrest would that be a violation of the maranda rights regardless if no information was obtained?
oh yeah then the officer told them yeah you under arrest
miranda rights are not a 14 amendment right of the fourth and fifth regardless, it is only there for incriminating evidence, but upon arresting someone for a warrant wouldn't they have to inform then you have a warrant for your arrest for a ticket or failed court appearance etc in the beginning not after they have interrogated the person isn't that backwards
would that be a violation of the maranda rights in a sense, because if you do not know your under arrest you might not think to say i need a lawyer or i have the right to remain silent
but you would think that he asking you the questions to get you to admit before he informs you your under arrest he knows that your under arrest cause he has the warrant, but i see what your saying there nothing to defend against cause he cant use the statement unless he lies and say he read you your rights
DISCLAIMER: Answers from Experts on JustAnswer are not substitutes for the advice of an attorney. JustAnswer is a public forum and questions and responses are not private or confidential or protected by the attorney-client privilege. The Expert above is not your attorney, and the response above is not legal advice. You should not read this response to propose specific action or address specific circumstances, but only to give you a sense of general principles of law that might affect the situation you describe. Application of these general principles to particular circumstances must be done by a lawyer who has spoken with you in confidence, learned all relevant information, and explored various options. Before acting on these general principles, you should hire a lawyer licensed to practice law in the jurisdiction to which your question pertains.
The responses above are from individual Experts, not JustAnswer. The site and services are provided “as is”. To view the verified credential of an Expert, click on the “Verified” symbol in the Expert’s profile. This site is not for emergency questions which should be directed immediately by telephone or in-person to qualified professionals. Please carefully read the Terms of Service (last updated February 8, 2012).