Introduction
In the case of Maps v. Ohio in the effect of a breach of the fourth amendment, Detective Quick draw was working confidentially on a case of drug dealing. He was using sneaky Pete as his confidential informant on the case. In the instance, the suspect was Sally Martin, who lived in street 1024. Street 1024 was a famous street known for drug dealing business. Detective quick drawn finally believed that Sally Martin had a large stock of cocaine in her apartment. In fact, from his investigations, the Detective claimed that Sally martin was planning to sell a few kilos of cocaine to the streets. The inspector send his confidential informant sneaky pet to buy some cocaine in sally martin residence. To confirm his believe sneaky Pete bought small quantity of cocaine and brought it to detective quick drawn. The detective was fully convinced that there was cocaine in sally martin apartment.
Since according to the United States rules you cannot search anybody apartment without search warrant signed by Judge, detective quick drawn had to call detective worthy to prepare a search warrant to Sally apartment. However, the judge was too busy and did not sign the search warrant immediately. This made detective quick drawn to be impatient. In addition he kept seeing men going and leaving street 1024. He then took the law into his own hand and he called uninformed back police. The backup police was unaware of the present of warrant to search sally martin apartment. Without a search warrant or arrest warrant, they found unregistered gun and a small amount of heroin.
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"The Fourth Amendment and Maps v. Ohio".
Facts (relevant and not relevant)
According to the case of Sally Martin vs. state, there are facts that are relevant and others that are irrelevant. A relevant fact in the case is that the police had entered private property without a search warrant. This was a bridge of the fourth amendment law. There is another fact that was not relevant to this case. The fact that sneaky Pete bought some cocaine in the apartment of sally martin was a fact. However, this fact had no relevant because there was no evidence to prove that in the house of sally martin there was cocaine. Also, the heroin, which was found in Sally martin apartment, was irrelevant fact evidence because there was no search warrant.
What are the rules of law stated in Map v. Ohio? Be sure to address the exclusionary rule and the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine.
The rules of law stated in Maps v. Ohio can be addressed by looking at the exclusionary rule and the fruit of poisonous tree doctrine. The rule of the law is that nobody is above the law. Detective quick drawn and his uniformed team entered the resident of sally martin without a warrant of search. This bridged the right of people to be secure in their apartment, and it violated the citizen’s constitutional rights to privacy and freedom. The exclusionary rule stated in this case is available in defendant because of the illegal search which was conducted by detective quick drawn. This rule holds that any evidence that was illegally obtained in a search that was not authorized by the judge is considered void. The evidence that there was present of some heroin in Cathy apartment was considered as void under the exclusionary rule.
Application of the rules and their relation to the relevant facts
The fruit of the poisonous tree is used to explain that in addition to any materials recovered during an illegal search that was against the fourth amendment is not included as evidence in the trial. From this case, the police had independent knowledge of the source of cocaine. Since the evidence obtained was illegal. According to the doctrine of the fruit of the poisonous tree, all the evidence, that Detective quick drawn had, was excluded from the case of Sally Martin. However the fruit of the poisonous tree has two exceptions, they are if the evidence obtained was inevitable the illegal search did not cause the disclosure of proof. Secondly, if the police had an independent source of the evidence, apart from the illegal search, All these exemptions were too relevant in the case of Sally Martin were not applicable.
Court’s decision and my ruling as a judge
In conclusion, the case was argued that even though the search was made without a warrant. The state was not being prevented from using evidence that was seized. The fourth amendment does not forbid the admission of any evidence that is obtained illegally. Ohio, the judge argued that the 14th amendment does not guarantee protection of the state right by the 4th amendment. From the case sally martin, was held guilty of possession of illegal, unregistered fire arm.
If I were the judge to rule the case of Sally Martin, in The Fourth Amendment and Maps v. Ohio, I would declare the defendant as innocent. This is because the police had entered private premises without either arrest warrant or research warrant. All the evidence that was obtained in this search should be excluded from the trial of Sally Martin. The Fourth Amendment had been violated and in accordance to the fruit of prisoner’s tree, the presence of heroin and unregistered gun should be made void. The police entered the premises claiming they had a warrant that they never produced. The item, which was to be searched, was cocaine that the police did fount. According to the exclusionary rule and the doctrine of’ the fruit of the poisonous tree,’ the evidence was obtained should not be used against the defendant. As judge, I will then declare the case to lack evidence and set sally martin free.
