FRANCHISING IN CANADA
March 8, 2022
Myth and Fairy Tales
March 9, 2022
The complaints request the court to exclude evidence obtained using an illegal seizure. Based on the information provided by the police, the following are assumed the following facts based on the information of the search.
- The license plate given by the police informants matches the vehicle searched by the police.
- After the search of the vehicle, the 1st complaint was found with crack cocaine and marijuana.
- The 2nd complaint pulse contained 1 gram of crack cocaine.
Although the above facts are not contested by the defendants, the manner in which the evidence was obtained is contested. Therefore, the plaintiffs respectively request this court to exclude the evidence under the provision of Rule 41(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and which renders the evidence obtained through illegal seize inadmissible in court Also, the police violated Fourth Amendment search warrant requirement (Scheb and Scheb, 467).
Court Ruling
The court can dismiss the plaintiffs’ requests. First, based on the principle of exigent circumstances. Specifically, if the police sought a search warrant, the evidence could be lost. In Chimel v. California, the court held that a search may be conducted before arrest to remove weapons and seize evidence (Storm 30). Thus the search by the police was justifiable. Another case law that the court can quote includes U.S. v. Robinson. The court ruled that the officer can search if there is a reasonable cause to preserve the evidence.
Is the exclusionary rule necessary to ensure the protection of our constitutional rights?
The clause is necessary because it offers protection from unnecessary researchers by the police. In the absence of the clause, the police can engage in illegal searchers that violates the constitutional rights of the individuals.
Works Cited
Scheb, John M, and J M Scheb. Criminal Law and Procedure. Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2011.
Storm, Lisa M. Criminal Procedure by Storm. Lulu, 2016.
