In this scenario, the police officers did not violate Sally’s Fourth Amendment rights because anyone on the streets could access her trash bag. Given Sally’s suspicious behavior, the police officers had probable cause to search her belongings to validate their investigative process. One of the most common remedies in unlawful search and seizures is to introduce motions to suppress and initiate suits that yield a certain level of relief attributed to injustice or declaratory pursuit. In Mapp v. Ohio, the court established that the exclusionary rule could apply when an unreasonable search and seizure violated the victim’s Fourth Amendment right (Stewart, 1983). I agree with the case’s outcome because of its ability to differentiate the approaches people can use in their interactions.
Even though Billy was justified to investigate his wife’s movements, the conduct of his private investigator violated Katie’s Fourth Amendment rights. Importantly, the evidence obtained from the notepad will only benefit Billy but violates the state laws that guarantee Katie’s Fourth Amendment rights. Given the nature of the evidence collected by the P.I., there is a need to observe that Katie can press for charges and sue the P.I for intrusion. Accessing personal property without the owner’s consent is a total violation of the victim’s rights, regardless of the nature of justification that can be used to validate the investigative process.
Evidence obtained from a suspect without a warrant is inadmissible in a court of law. In this case, police officers conducted an unwarranted search and seizure in Grant’s room in his absence. Even though Grant’s friend gave them the go-ahead, his absence presents a complex twist that may interfere with the trial process. However, the good-faith exception can be applied in this case, as seen in Arizona v. Evans (Williams, 1996). Unlawful arrests can be contested, presenting suspects with a wide range of options they can use to justify their innocence.
Williams, W. C. (1996). Constitutional Law: Premature Federal Adjudication through the Plain Statement Rule-Arizona v. Evans. U. Fla. JL & Pub. Pol’y, 8, 129.
Stewart, P. (1983). The road to Mapp v. Ohio and beyond: the origins, development and future of the exclusionary rule in search-and-seizure cases. Colum. L. Rev., 83, 1365.