The case involved one Kaupp Robert who had been implicated in a case involving the disappearance of a teenage girl. Investigations by the sheriff department had indicated that the girl was having a sexual relationship with her half brother; this brother was in the company of Kaupp on the day the girl disappeared. After a long period of interrogation the half brother confessed to killing the girl and at the same time made claims that Kaupp was also involved in the crime. Being unable to obtain a warrant to interrogate Kaupp, the detectives confronted Kaupp at his house a day after he had been implicated in the crime. On entering Kaupp’s home, the detectives proceeded to handcuff him and lead him into a patrol car while he was still in his boxer shorts. There are no records indicating that Kaupp had been given the choice of going with the detectives or not.
The Fourth Amendment calls for protection of citizens from unwarranted searches and arrests. This case represents an example of such a case because the detectives proceeded to arrest Kaupp for interrogation without any warrant allowing them to do so. This amendment only allows for police officers to arrest a person without a warrant only when doing so will stop the person from taking part in a crime. The Supreme Court declared the evidence from Kaupp’s confession taken during the arrest inadmissible. The court declared that the fourth amendment had been violated in this particular case.
The detectives in this case seemed much focused on ensuring justice was done- at least for the murdered girl. It is however surprising that these detectives forgot to uphold the same law they are called upon to enforce. Their efforts of arresting Kaupp in the middle of the night and taking him to the station for interrogation bore no fruits- as the evidence from this interrogation was not accepted in court. The officers should have waited for a warrant from the District Attorney before proceeding to arrest or interrogate Kaupp. This way they would have ensured that all the evidence they collected from the interrogation was admissible in court. The officers should have exercised patience taking care not to break the same law they were trying to enforce.
