Argued December 2, 3. 1913
Decided February 24, 1914
An indictment was made on the defendant Fremont Weeks for using the postal mail for the transportation of lottery tickets, which was a criminal code violation. The police arrested him at his place of work and in arresting him; they conducted a warrantless search on his office and found evidence of the usage of the mail for the transport of lottery tickets. The police later went to Week’s home and entered illegally using a key whose hiding place was directed to them by a neighbor. The police later went on to search the defendant’s premises without an official warrant. Their search yielded several documents, which were used to convict him on charges of illegally transporting lottery tickets.
Procedural History
The defendant was convicted by the lower court of illegal transit of lottery tickets using US mail. During the trial at the lower court, the documents obtained from the Week’s premises were used as part of the evidence and this significantly contributed to his conviction. After his conviction, the defendant, Weeks, filed a petition in the US Supreme court asking for the return of property that the police took because it was in violation of his constitutional rights. He wanted the court to rule that the property was in the first case inadmissible to the trial because it was obtained via illegal means. In addition, it was in violation of his constitutional rights as dictated by the Fourth Amendments. The court ruled that the seizure of documents from the defendant’s residence was indeed a violation of his constitutional rights and ruled that they should be returned. In doing so, the court essentially overturned Week’s conviction.
Rules of Law
The legal question that this case presented was whether the search and subsequent seizure of documents from the defendant’s home was indeed a violation of the Fourth Amendment rights of Weeks. The Fourth Amendment grants one freedom from illegal and unreasonable searches as well as seizures. There was the question of whether the exclusionary rule was applicable in this case. This rule states that evidence obtained from an illegal search or seizure is not credible enough to establish a reasonable cause for other subsequent searches. In the end, the exclusionary rule was applied in this case.
Issue: The legal issue in this case was whether the warrantless search conducted on Week’s house by the federal officers were in violation of his constitutional rights. The other legal issue in question was whether the government could keep the property taken from Weeks premises and whether the property was admissible in court.
Holding: The search and the seizure of the defendant’s premises without a warrant is unconstitutional. The search is in violation of the victim’s Fourth Amendments rights, which fully protect him from unreasonable searches especially without warrants.
Reasoning
The search and seizure of papers from week’s residence was done illegally without a warrant. This was in itself a violation of the defendant’s Fourth Amendment constitutional rights, which protect him for such irregular searches. One of the judges at the Supreme Court, Justice William R. Day made clear of the violation of the Week’s Fourth Amendment Rights, which were violated when his premises were invaded and searched without a warrant. Allowing the seizing of private documents by the federal government and using them, as evidence against a defendant would inadvertently render the Fourth amendment useless. This was indeed the first application of the famed exclusionary rule. The conviction against the defendant, Weeks, was overturned because the evidence used in the first place to convict him had been obtained illegally. The property illegally seized from him was also returned to him and this property was deemed inadmissible at court.
Concurrence
The decision made by the Supreme Court was unanimous and every single judge agreed with the holding, ruling and decision.
Source: http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/232/383/case.html
Argued December 12, 1967
Decided June 10, 1968.
Police detective McFadden noticed two men walking up a neighborhood store, peering inside through the window and then walking away. A third man was also seem talking to the two men. The officer thought that this behaviour was suspicious and suspected that the men were about to stage a robbery on the store. He approached the two men, one of them who was the petitioner, Terry and conducted a quick search on them. The search revealed that the petitioner and the other man were carrying a concealed gun. The petitioner was subsequently charged with carrying hidden weapon.
Procedural history
After the suspect had been arrested, he had been taken to the lower court where he was charged with carrying concealed weapon. He was subsequently found guilty and was convicted. The Supreme Court of Ohio ruled that an exception to the Fourth Amendment could be carved out. The court stated that the police had entitlement to search a suspect based on reasonable suspicion in place of probable cause that is a much higher standard. The exclusionary rule was thus denied and the court stated that the police detective had credible reasons to believe that Terry and the other suspects were acting in a suspicious manner. The petitioner sought to overturn the judgment of the lower court, which had convicted him of carrying a hidden or concealed weapon.
Rules of Law
The legal issue or statues raise by this case was whether a search conducted by an officer for weapons without probable cause for arrest is a violation of the Fourth Amendment. The fourth amendment protects all citizens form unreasonable searches by officers of the law. However, there is an exception to this law as revealed in this case. An officer of the law may go ahead and summon a suspect before subjecting him to weapons search without a warrant, and even in the absence of probable cause. This is when the officer believes that suspect may be carrying dangerous weapons that are threat to other’s lives.
Issue: Were the lower courts erroneous in finding that the detective had a reasonable cause to search Terry, therefore making the search valid in accordance with the fourth amendment?
Holding
A police officer has justification to conduct a limited search on an individual that he has reasonable suspicions on in order to find out any weapons, which the suspect might use to cause harm to him or other individuals nearby. This is even if there is no probable cause of arrest. Additionally, the weapons discovered can be introduced as evidence in court.
Reasoning
The Fourth amendment provides protection from unreasonable searches but does not essentially protect people acting suspiciously from questioning by police officers and possible searches for contraband if the officer is of the opinion that the situation might escalate to a grave matter. The officer acted out of experience and ate the best interest of his job. It is indeed unreasonable for a an officer of the law to take preventable risks in the course of performing their duties. In addition, he only conducted a limited search on the suspects and not an entire frisk or a general exploratory search, which would have been a violation of the Fourth Amendment. His search was confined to the minimum or to the point where it was necessary for him to establish whether Terry and co were armed and to consequently disarm them once he found that they were in possession of deadly weapons. The weapons thus found on the suspects were therefore admissible as evidence in court.
Concurrence/ Dissent
Of the judges deciding the case, three of them offered concurring opinions and these were Justice White, Harlan, and Black. One judge however, Justice Douglas had a dissenting opinion where he cited that no connection can actually be made by any reasonable person to conduct search for weapons by an individual who is merely loitering on a particular property. Douglas was of the opinion that the infringement of an individual’s personal freedom can only be deemed reasonable if a probable cause can be established.
Source: http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/392/1/case.html
Works Cited
Justia US Supreme Court Center. N.p., 2 Dec. 2013. Web. 12 Jan. 2014.
