Home » Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution » Supreme Court Case: US V. Calandra 1974 Essay

Supreme Court Case: US V. Calandra 1974 Essay

In the case US v. Calandra (1974), Calandra was being questioned by the federal grand jury about loan sharking business. The reason the jury was asking these question were based on the evidence obtained at his company. Calandra didn’t want to answer any questions because he felt that the search of the company was an unlawful search and that it violated his fourth amendment exclusionary rule. The refusal to answer the grand jury, was what was being question about this case. Calandra felt like because of the exclusionary rule undeOr the fourth amendment he didn’t have to answer but he was wrong.

The supreme court held that the exclusionary rule was only applicable in criminal courts and was not meant to be seen as a right but as a way to reduce unreasonable searches and seizures conducted by police (“Oyez: US v. Calandra,” n. d. ). Stone v. Powell (1976) was convicted of murder in the state of California. Powell claimed that the search against him was unlawful so the gun found on him should have been inadmissible in court. He tried to file a writ of habeas corpus but a state prisoner is not granted that right since the state provided im with a full and fair opportunity to litigate a fourth amendment claim.

So, exclusionary rule was not and is not able to be filed at a habeas corpus trial. Pennsylvania v. Scott (1998) was about whether or not the exclusionary rule applies to parole revocation hearings. In this case, Scott was a parolee and a condition that was placed for him is that he could not be in possession of or own any weapons. Officers learned that Scott may have weapons and also violated other conditions. So they searched his home and found a bow, and arrow, and a firearm. During his revocation hearing, Scott wanted the evidence dismissed by saying that the search was illegal therefore making the evidence illegal.

The Supreme Court held that the federal exclusionary rule does not apply to parole revocation hearings One 1958 Plymouth Sedan v. Pennsylvania (1965) was about two state officers that had pulled over and searched a car without a warrant. While they were searching the car the officers found 31 cases of untaxed liquor in it. They then arrested the driver and seized the liquor. The state then filed for petition, for forfeiture of the car, which was dismissed because the evidence was obtained illegally and the forfeiture would make this evidence inadmissible.

The Supreme Court ruled that the exclusionary rule only applied to criminal matter not civil. Forfeitures generally tend to be more of civil matters. In Herring v. US (2009), officers arrested Herring based on a warrant issued by Dale County. When they arrested him the officers had search incident to arrest. This basically grants officers a warrantless search of the person that is being arrested and the immediate area around them. This arrest is necessary to secure the officers safety, to make sure no escape is possible, and to also prevent the destruction evidence.

Because of search incident to arrest, the officers found a gun and some drugs in the car. After the arrest was made, officers found out that the warrant had been recalled months earlier. Herring was still convicted and charged with gun and drug possession charges. Herring wanted them to suppress the evidence being that the arrest had been illegal since he didn’t really have a warrant on him. The Supreme Court denied the motion to suppress the vidence and also stated that exclusionary rule did not apply.

The circuit affirmed and said that the officers were innocent and done no wrongdoing. The evidence was admissible under good faith. The officers did not know the warrant had been recalled and they should always be able to trust the validity of a warrant. In Michigan v. Defillippo (1979), an officer notices a man and a women in an alley. The women was lowering her slacks when the officer noticed them. The officer asked the man to present him with identification, the man gave evasive and inconsistent responses.

The officer arrested him for violating a Detroit ordinance which reads, “That a police officer may stop and question an individual if he has reasonable cause to believe that the individual’s “behavior … warrants further investigation” for criminal activity, and further provides that it is unlawful for any person so stopped to refuse to identify himself and produce evidence of his identity. ” (Knowles, 2016a). Since the cops arrested him, they conducted a search and found drugs on him. They char the man with a drug offense and not with violating the ordinance.

The man wanted the evidence dismissed but the trail court denied it. The Michigan court then proceeded to say that the ordinance was vague and that both the arrest and search was invalid because they didn’t even charge with him violating the ordinance. The Supreme Court extended the good faith unto that ordinance declaring that the officer did not know that the ordinance was later going to be named unconstitutional. In Arizona v. Evans (1995), the respondent was stopped because of a routine traffic stop. The officer’s computer indicated that there was a misdemeanor warrant out or the respondent’s arrest.

The officer search his car and found marijuana in it, so the officer charged him with possession. The respondent tried to have the marijuana suppressed as evidence since his warrant had been squashed since before the arrest. This was denied because the purpose of the exclusionary rule wouldn’t be served if they dismissed evidence that was obtained by error of employees. These employees were not directly associated with the arresting officer. So the arresting officer had no way of knowing that the misdemeanor warrant wasn’t valid.

Since the error was a clerical error exclusionary rule was not applied to suppress the evidence. In the US v Havens (1980) case, McLeroth was smuggling drugs with another guy. He had cocaine sewn into the pockets of his shirt and when he was searched the officers found the cocaine and questioned him. The questioning is what led officers to the other respondent. The respondent that McLeroth pointed out was arrested and also searched. They found in his suitcase, the t-shirt that he cut into, to make the pockets for McLeroth’s t-shirt.

During the trial he was questioned about the shirt and said that he had no nowledge of it. The t-shirt was then admitted into evidence and the jury was told that this evidence was only to be considered for impeachment purposes only. The evidence was allowed to be used during the impeachment process and this can only happen if the evidence contradicts what the defendant is saying or said in a particular statement. In the case of Minnesota v Olsen (1990), the question of whether incriminating statements made by a defendant, after an arrest, should be included as evidence if the search that led to the arrest was illegal.

What appened in this case is that police made a warrantless and a unconsented entry of the Bergstrom’s home. Rob was staying at their home as a guest and basically what the Supreme Court held is that Rob had a reasonable expectation of privacy even if it wasn’t his home. The Michigan Supreme Court also noted that the officers in this case didn’t have exigent circumstances. This means that they had enough time to get a warrant to search the premises. In sum, when an individual is staying overnight as a guest in someone else’s house they still have the right to privacy even if it is not there home.

Cite This Work

To export a reference to this essay please select a referencing style below:

Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.