Evidence Suppression: A Case Discussion

Our criminal justice system wants to condemn the guilty while protecting the innocent. As in any element of our society, it is necessary that at some point there should be a system to maintain and serve fairness and justice. This can be achieved by fully exploring and considering all elements of the research, within the prescribed procedure. Nowhere is following prescribed behavior more important than in the proper collection and handling of evidence. It is essential to making a case and winning a conviction. Improper collection and handling of evidence gives rise to motions by the defense attorney to suppress evidence or to throw out evidence because it was collected improperly or out of order. If vital evidence is suppressed, cases run the risk of being dismissed altogether or their prosecution blocked. The criminals were released because of the improper collection of evidence. When this happens, justice is neglected.

Site Discussion

The body of Clyde Stevens was found in a closet by the owner of the property, Mrs. Ellis. Mrs. Elias called the police to the scene. The suspect in the case, the son of the owner, William Ellis, resides within a limited area of the house, a room not directly connected or connected to the area in which the body was found. The police did not allow the owner of the property, Mrs. Ellis, the suspect, William Ellis’ permission or to search the property beyond the immediate area where the body was found. The authorities arrived to collect evidence outside the area where the body was found and obtained evidence that supported the theory of William Ellis’ murder. William Elias was arrested on this evidence outside the immediate physical area. Additional evidence was obtained from the victim’s home, where the victim’s wife gave a statement and gave her consent to the search of the family matter.
Questions should be sent to this site:

· Can the evidence be legally suppressed in this case?

· What court cases support the suppression of evidence?

· What order should be kept in the scene?

Can evidence be suppressed?

William’s Lawyer can argue that the evidence was excluded because the police had no warrant to search William’s room and no permission from either party involved (William or his mother). Police Officers could argue that the room is part of the overall crime scene, that the house is a crime scene rather than just a crime scene. the place where his body was found. If the police argued so, the lawyer of William Flippo v.West Virginia, where the courts “rejected contention that there is a “murder scene exception” in the Fourth Amendment’s warrant clause” (Georgia Law Enforcement Handbook, 2001). William’s lawyer was able to argue that the closet where the body was found was the crime scene, not William’s room, which he wanted. his domicile is to be considered. Any evidence found beyond the exploratory investigation required other victims or the perpetrator of the investigation. It would not be allowed to cross the passage at home, looking for other victims or the perpetrator, in places large enough to hide a person. It would overcome the Elephant in the Breadbox teaching (Stevens, 2003).
The only evidence that will be considered admissible will be evidence found in the area closest to the crime scene (the room where the body was found). Any search without a warrant and all the evidence improperly obtained, and any additional evidence it might produce, would be improper, because the search was illegal. Officials should at least ask for permission from the property owner and preferably in William’s room.
Any evidence found in Steven’s home cannot be excluded, however, because consent to the search was given by the homeowner. home

Which court cases support the suppression of evidence?

An inquiry is an invasion of privacy. Prior to Katz v. U.S. (1967), defined the doctrine of secrecy as a crime. Today, the “reasonable expectation of privacy” doctrine applies. The Fourth Amendment does not protect against all invasions of privacy; it only prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. The exclusive rule that prohibits the use of evidence collected in illegal investigations, from supreme court case court was created. Mapp v. Ohio. (It is important to note that this case punishes police and police misconduct as not protecting the constitutional rights of suspects.) This case involved the Fourth Amendment in the conclusion of the fourteenth amendment. Weeks v.United States is the first example of the exclusive use rule. This case took legal evidence indicating that Weeks was involved in illegal gambling. Weeks objected to this preface in court. The objection laid the groundwork for an appeal to the Supreme Court. The court in their decision, “if private letters and documents can be so seized and used as evidence, … one’s right to be protected against such searches … is of no importance, and … may even be struck from the Constitution” (ThinkQuest Oracle, 2006) .

The fruit of the poisonous tree of doctrine in Lambert’s Silverthorne. Co. v. U.S.(1920), states that any evidence obtained illegally is inadmissible, as is any evidence or testimony obtained by reason of the evidentiary statute. The inevitable discovery is one loop of this doctrine based on Snow v. Williams‘s (1984), courts have established that if the documents were obtained illegally, in all probability they will eventually be found anyway (i.e. Stevens, 2003).

What procedure was followed in the scene?

Laws have been established and procedures must be kept in place to collect evidence. The investigator must follow all local, state, and federal laws as they relate to the collection of evidence. The investigator, prior to or arriving at the scene of death, must work with other agencies to: determine the need for an investigation, identify local, state, federal, and international laws and regulations and identify medical and coroner and/or office standard operating procedures (National Criminal Justice Reference Service, 2006).

There are three main types of research: physical evidence, interview and questioning. Here are some of the best practices that, if not followed, can pose a risk.

Arriving on the scene

The first intervening officer must implement procedures that will protect and secure the victim, the suspect, the public, law enforcement. /a> and/or personnel to deliver, preserve and protect evidence (Byrd, 2004). The first officer at the crime scene must produce clear and concise documentation of his observations and actions at the scene, which are the beginning of the investigation of the crime. The first officer on the scene, in the state discussed in this paper, should call the state of affairs and request a detective or investigator, medical assistance for Mrs. Ellis and the coroner. And then he must secure the area in which the body was found, determine what was touched and from where it first arrived, and determine who was in the house at the time of the discovery and who lived in the residence. . There seemed to be no signs that he was in danger, so the police would maintain security at the scene and wait for the investigator.

There are three basic steps in the actual crime scene process. They consist of a review of the scene, which is usually done by the prime minister, an initial assessment of the scene and the collection of documents usually carried out by investigators and evidence, which are properly organized by the individual in the accepted policies and protocols for carrying out the task. These three steps of crime scene investigation lead to three basic elements of investigation. Crime scene identification provides a base point for the collection of physical evidence. Initial crime scene evaluations and document identification of victims, witnesses and potential suspects provides the investigator with the beginning of interviewing and questioning.

Physical Evidence

The collection of physical evidence involves the collection of various types of materials and samples from a crime scene that includes things such as blood, body fluids, other biologicals, fingerprints, tissues, weapons, clothing, written material, or anything else that could potentially provide information. to the crime, the victim or the suspect. Before any evidence is collected, the investigator must follow all laws and regulations governing the situation. In the situation discussed in this paper, the simple permission of the owner of the property to search is not enough. Mrs. Ellis could be given permission by the police to search a particular property, such as William’s bedroom, under the Consent to Search Exception. An individual who has common authority over the premises, such as the owner, can grant consent within the limits (not the whole house), if the waiver of their rights was made voluntarily and intelligently (Stevens, 2003). However, given the seriousness of this situation and the fact that Mrs. Ellis’s mental state could be brought into question, a cautionary note would be made, there is no later objection to evidence based on the child’s bedroom being a separate space and not part of it. a thing under the domain’s control or directly connected with the crime scene. Looking for a warranty for the whole thing. Collected documents and documents or reference samples from the given scene and a collection of their locations that are identified. Each piece of evidence to be collected must also be noted. The chain of custody is consistent with all the evidence. The actual protocols for evidence collection are very detailed. Individuals must understand the various tests that are to be done and how the test scores are opposed to those tests.

If proper procedures are followed, physical evidence can be used to provide evidence, convict criminals, or provide identification where witnesses are not present. If the wrong methods are used, something as simple as a record keeping error can destroy the value of the evidence.

Meeting

Interviewing is the investigator’s opportunity to obtain evidence and testimony that may assist in establishing facts, identify potential suspects, and potentially provide corroboration. In the situation discussed in this paper, as much information as possible should be obtained from Mrs. Ellis before she is removed from the scene (ie, the time of the discovery, the events leading up to the discovery, what she did when she discovered it. If she spoke to a body other than the police?). Interviews of witnesses or victims should be done as close to the time of the event as possible because the more time that passes between the event and the interview, the more information can be lost. Individual recall and retention varied with the process of time. The witness must be allowed to give an account without interruption and the account must be reviewed later. Open-ended questions should be used and care should be exercised so that the investigator does not undermine or undermine the information provided during the interview by inadvertently revealing or assuming details of the witness or victim or by questioning. When questioning Mrs. Ellis, the investigator must both consider Mrs. Ellis a potential suspect and realize that, if she is not the perpetrator, she has been traumatized by the experience of finding the body. Care should be exercised. If the questioning of Mrs. Ellis is to be held later, especially if in a hospital setting, the potential medical risks must be considered and the medication evidence taken into account and noted on the record. All existing conditions that could have an impact on the victim or witness statement or testimony should be noted in the interview report (Holmes, 2003).

Well-planned and managed interviews can provide details that may not be accessible elsewhere. Descriptions of suspects, vehicles, smells, sounds and movements all add elements that create a focus for the investigation and can result in the apprehension and conviction of the suspect. Badly thought out, poorly conducted conversations have the potential to doom the case. If the investigator has drawn false conclusions from the evidence, the evidence only supports the investigator’s conception of the crime and may lead the investigation by the perpetrator.

Interrogation

The interrogation of suspects is the third part of the investigation. Where the most accepted definition of interrogation comes to mean the actual formal questioning of a suspect once detained or otherwise detained, this paper defines it as any exchange between investigators and suspects. Questioning is almost universally recognized, by community policing, as a necessary part of any effective investigation (Williams, 2000).
The last order of the classic interrogation is to elicit a confession from the suspect, incriminating evidence or information related to generating other crimes (Leo, 1994). In a broader view informal questioning interviews (interrogations) with the suspect before arrest are usually conducted which trigger the suspicion and the questioning focuses on the suspect (Williams, 2000).

In the situation which is discussed in this letter, William Elias was placed and questioned as much as possible. From the statement given by Mrs Stevens to the investigators, William Ellis was the most likely suspect because he appeared to have a negative history with the victim and lived inside the house where the victim was found.
The parameters that make up the question itself are a basic list of “dos and don’ts.” Skills based on the Reid Technique include: de Miranda, direct positive training (of course the suspect is responsible) offering moral or psychological excuses for the suspects >, using soft language (taking money rather than money), using hypothetical questions to stimulate the inner thoughts of the suspect, and offering alternative questions associated with the crime (Jayne, 2004). crime, physical or emotional abuse or torture, deprivation of sleep, food or water for extended periods of time, does not allow the right to be suspected to consult him and to reveal the details of the case.

Conclusion

Overall, based on the information presented, the issue discussed in this paper was poorly handled. Why should it be thought that he was treated badly? There are real quests, living real lives, good days, bad days, days when you are tired, days when you are acted upon by others, and days when you wonder why you get up in the morning and work. .

At least, Mrs. Elias should have been asked if the search for her son’s room was managed. Since this was inherently dangerous, it would have been better than no permission and no warranty. The authorities could try to make a case of an emergency situation, but this would be inappropriate to hold when they had the scene under their control and there was no evidence of imminent danger (Wikipedia, 2005). There is a possibility that they could try using the exception Inventory search and then View Learning Fields. When Mrs. Ellis was removed to the hospital, it could be argued that an inventory search was necessary to protect the parties from disputes and claims. Unless the evidence is in danger or the suspect is in danger of flight, it is accurate and “fair on its face” used.