Summary
It is easy to understand the rationale behind the Fourth Amendment. The same thing can be said of the outcome of the said law: the exclusionary rule and the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine because the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights were created to protect American citizens against the coercive capability of a powerful government. These legal principles came out as a result of the American people’s bitter experiences when the country was still under British rule. These legal principles were created to prevent illegal searches and illegal seizure of goods. However, there are exceptions to the rule, and the following discussion attempts to shed light on these exceptions.
Exclusionary Rule and the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine
When America was still under the control of the British Empire, its citizens suffer from general searches, known as “writs of assistance, to enforce laws against smuggling” (Schultz & Vile, 2005, p. 397). One can just imagine the humiliation and trauma caused by random searches and the deliberate violation of the principle that states that “a man’s home is his castle” (Schultz & Vile, 2005, p. 397). In addition, the Bill of Rights was created to assuage the fears of American citizens against the perceived overbearing power of the Federal Government. As a result, police officers and other law enforcement agents are prohibited from conducting any type of search or seizure of items from a residence or workplace without the application of a search warrant.
Items or pieces of evidence that were seized in the absence of a search warrant are deemed inadmissible in a court of law. In other words, the seized items are of no use to the prosecutor or the plaintiff. The court moves to exclude the said evidence for trial purposes. The evidence that was excluded in violation of the Fourth Amendment becomes the basis for the poisonous tree doctrine. In the process of investigating the residence of a person of interest or the suspect of a particular crime, it is not uncommon to create a chain reaction of events, such that the discovery of a single piece of evidence leads to the discovery of other sets of evidences that strengthen the case against the defendant. However, when the exclusionary rule made the primary evidence inadmissible in a court of law, the secondary evidence that was uncovered during the illegal search is considered as tainted or has become a fruit of a poisonous tree. Therefore, the evidence discovered at a later date is no longer acceptable according to the aforementioned legal framework.
Applying the Rules to the Case Study
At first glance, it seems like there was no need to obtain a search warrant to process the crime scene. This assertion was based on two irrefutable facts of the case. First, there was a murder scene. Second, Mary Ellis gave her consent when she called 911 and gave approval to the entry of police officers and emergency responders to her home. Nevertheless, there are other factors to consider, and upon closer examination of the facts pertinent to the case, the best course of action would have been to obtain a search warrant as a prelude to conducting an exhaustive search of the property.
The initial reaction was to forego the acquisition of a search warrant; however, this is not the best course of action. In the case, Mincey v. Arizona homicide detectives entered the property owned by Rufus Mincey, in the aftermath of a shooting death incident. The search was conducted without the aid of a warrant. Later on, the Supreme Court ruled that there is no crime scene exception to the Fourth Amendment rule. The only exception is those scenarios based on the exigent circumstances principle (Wecht & Rago, 2006). However, there was no real threat that would have caused the destruction of the evidence, and there were no other circumstances that compelled investigators to act in haste. In other words, they had enough time to secure a warrant. Going back to the case study, the mere presence of a dead body does not give officers the blanket authority to investigate and gather evidence without a search warrant.
With regards to the assertion that Mary Ellis provided consent when she dialed 911 and allowed police officers to enter her home, the law also states that it is imperative to protect and honor the privacy of the other occupants. During that time, Mary Ellis was living with her son, William Ellis. Her son did not give consent to the police officers and crime scene investigators to breach the privacy of his room (Gardner & Anderson, 2016).
Civil Liability of Police Officers
Theoretically speaking, police is civilly liable if found guilty of conducting an illegal search in the context of Fourth Amendment principles (Berlin, 2011). However, there are exceptions, such as conducting the said search and seizure of items in good faith. In other words, police officers eager to enforce the law and zealous in observing duties and responsibilities are immune from legal repercussions. The law seems to favor police officers when they operate within the bounds of the law, and if the failure to obtain a warrant was done without malice. The law shows greater favor to federal agents. In the case, Bell v. Hood the jurisprudence of the said case clarified the fact that the Fourth Amendment refers to the government and its agents, therefore it is impossible to sue federal officers as individuals (Schad, 1967). At the same time, The Federal Tort Claims Act prohibits suits that are consequences of false imprisonment, false arrest, slander, abuse of process, libel and misrepresentation (Schad, 1967). One can argue that the added layer of protection in favor of police officers and federal officers was made to encourage law enforcement officers to perform their duties without fear of reprisal.
Step-by-Step Process
After acknowledging Mary Elliss’s call for help, the responding police officer must knock on the door, announce his presence and authority. Once, Mary Ellis, it was made it clear that she was not resisting or challenging the authority of the law enforcement agents, then, the responding police officer must lead the way to secure the premise and provide assistance to the old woman. The responding officer must secure the area by making sure that the assailant was no longer inside the house, and at the same time, he makes sure that there are no other victims within the property. After transporting Mary Ellis to the nearest healthcare facility, the responding officer must limit his actions to that of securing the area against the possible destruction of evidence or the tampering of evidence. The next logical step is to secure a search warrant from a neutral magistrate. In the said application, the responding officer must clarify the exact location of the crime scene and indicate the purpose of the search warrant. The careful observance of the aforementioned procedures will ensure the admissibility of all types of evidence that were discovered by the crime scene experts.
Works Cited
Berlin, M. (2011). “Crime scene searches and the Fourth Amendment.” Investigative Science Journal, 3(2): 4-22.
Gardner, T., & Anderson, T. (2016). Criminal evidence: Principles and cases. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.
Schad, M. (1967). Police liability for invasion of privacy. Web.
Schultz, D., Vile, J. (2005). The encyclopedia of civil liberties in America. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
Wecht, C., & Rago, J. (2006). Forensic science and law. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.