Te presentamos
Tu nuevo asistente de presentaciones.
Perfecciona, mejora y adapta tus contenidos, busca imágenes relevantes y edita elementos visuales más rápido que nunca.
Búsquedas populares
The original problem in the Wolf v. Colorado case was obtaining evidence illegally. To be able to search someone, you have to have probable cause. Once you have probable cause, you have to have a judge sign off for a warrant. When you obtain the warrant, then you can search someone, and/or their property. There was never a warrant signed making the evidence voided. The court still used the evidence even though it was not allowed. This caused many problems in the trials.
The amendment in question is the 4th amendment. The 4th amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. To get evidence from a crime scene or from a suspect you have to obtain a warrant. The warrant needs to be signed off by a judge giving you reason. You need probable cause to get the warrant. The evidence was not obtained legally. Since it was obtained illegally, this caused a knot in the trials.
This case has many mixed opnions giving people opportunities to choose a side
Julius A. Wolf, Charles H. Fulton, and Betty Fulton were charged with conspiracy to perform an abortion. At trial, Wolf objected to evidence material and admissible as to his co-defendants would be inadmissible if he were tried separately. The Colorado Supreme Court upheld all three convictions in which evidence was admitted that would have been inadmissible in a prosecution for violation of a federal law in a federal court. On Wolfs side, only 3 people were on his side. Those three people were Douglas, Murphy, and Rutledge. Even though he saw he was outnumbered, he kept trying. In the end, there just weren't enough numbers on Wolf's side.
Colorado's Side
Most people were on Colorado's side during the trials. Frankfurter noted that the law in England, where there was no exclusionary rule, and in the states, the majority of which rejected the rule, proved that justice could be served without this check on police behavior. States were left free to adopt whatever procedures they wished to enforce search and seizure rights. The exclusionary rule was not mandatory. Having this logic made people believe Colorado's side more than Wolf's. 6 of the court members on the side or colorado. After the trials, more people favored Colorado.
The faded members voted for Wolf
Ruling + Why
This case involved a Colorado physician who was suspected of performing illegal abortions. Because the police were unable to obtain any solid evidence against him, a deputy sheriff surreptitiously took Julius Wolf’s appointment book and followed up on the names in it. The police gathered enough evidence to convict him. Wolf’s attorney argued that because the case against his client rested on illegally obtained evidence, the Court should dismiss it. To implement his arguments, however, the justices would have to apply or incorporate the Fourth Amendment and impose the exclusionary rule on the states. Writing for the Court, Justice Felix Frankfurter agreed to incorporate the Fourth Amendment. To be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures was deemed a fundamental right, “basic to a free society,” and the provisions of the amendment applied to the states through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court, however, refused to hold that the exclusionary rule was a necessary part of the Fourth Amendment and upheld Wolf’s conviction. The rule was one method of enforcing search and seizure rights, but it was not the only one. In other words, although state law enforcement officials must abide by the guarantees contained in the Fourth Amendment, judges need not use a particular mechanism, such as the exclusionary rule, to ensure compliance. Indeed, 2/3 of the states do not use the exclusionary rule. They found Wolf Guilty of criminal abbortions even though the evidence was obtained illegally. Different states interepert amendments in different ways making it hard throughout states. Having this case has helped courts have a universal understanding of the amendments. Hopefully in the future, another case like this won't happen.
Minority Opnion
In a 6-to-3 decision, the Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment did not subject criminal justice in the states to specific limitations. Illegally obtained evidence did not have to be excluded from trials in all cases. The Court reasoned that while the exclusion of evidence may have been an effective way to deter unreasonable searches. Other methods could be equally effective and would not fall below the minimal standards assured by the Due Process Clause. Civil remedies, such as "the internal discipline of the police, under the eyes of an alert public opinion," were sufficient.