Date of the Trial: Many of them are collected in the note to State v. It was further held, approving in that respect the doctrine laid down in 1 Greenleaf, Ev. As to the papers and property seized by the policemen, it does not appear that they acted under any claim of Federal authority such as would make the Amendment applicable to such unauthorized seizures.
If letters and private documents can thus be seized and held and used in evidence against a citizen accused of an offense, the protection of the Fourth Amendment declaring his right to be secure against such searches and seizures is of no value, and, so far as those thus placed are concerned, might as well be stricken from the Constitution.
See 2 Watson, Const. The tendency of those who execute the criminal laws of the country to obtain conviction by means of unlawful seizures and enforced confessions, the latter often obtained after subjecting accused persons to unwarranted practices destructive of rights secured by the Federal Constitution, should find no sanction in the judgments of the courts, which are charged at all times with the support of the Constitution, and to which people of all conditions have a right to appeal for the maintenance of such fundamental rights.
Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We therefore reach the conclusion that the letters in question were taken from the house of the accused by an official of the United States, acting under color of his office, in direct violation of the constitutional rights of the defendant; that having made a seasonable application for their return, which was heard and passed upon by the court, there was involved in the order refusing the application a denial of the constitutional rights of the accused, and that the court should have restored these letters to the accused.
This writ of error is to review that judgment.
Such practices had also received sanction under warrants and seizures under the so-called writs of assistance, issued in the American colonies. What remedies the defendant may have against them we need not inquire, as the Fourth Amendment is not directed to individual misconduct of such officials.
This protection is equally extended to the action of the government and officers of the law acting under it. While a search ordinarily implies a quest by an officer of the law, and a seizure contemplates a forcible dispossession of the owner, still, as was held in the Boyd Case, the substance of the offense is the compulsory production of private papers, whether under a search warrant or a subpoena duces tecum, against which the person, be he individual or corporation, is entitled to protection.
Justice Day delivered the opinion of the court: This protection reaches all alike, whether accused of crime or not, and the duty of giving to it force and effect is obligatory upon all intrusted under our Federal system with the enforcement of the laws.
While there is no opinion in the case, the court in this proceeding doubtless relied upon what is now contended by the government to be the correct rule of law under such circumstances -- that the letters having come into the control of the court, it would not inquire into the manner in which they were obtained, but, if competent, would keep them and permit their use in evidence.
The record shows that what they did by way of arrest and search and seizure was done before the finding of the indictment in the Federal court, under what supposed right or authority does not appear. The United States marshal could only have invaded the house of the accused when armed with a warrant issued as required by the Constitution, upon sworn information, and describing with reasonable particularity the thing for which the search was to be made.
United States, set forth the exclusionary rule, which prohibits the admission of illegally obtained evidence in the federal court system. The seventh count, upon which a conviction was had, charged the use of the mails for the purpose of transporting certain coupons or tickets representing chances or shares in a lottery or gift enterprise, in violation of of the Criminal Code [35 Stat.
This right has been uniformly maintained in many cases.WEEKS v. UNITED STATES. No. 3. Supreme Court of United States. Argued December 2, 3, in which it was held that the seizure by the United States Marshal in a copyright case of certain pictures under a writ of replevin did not constitute an unreasonable search and seizure.
The Format of a Case Study; What are Case Studies; Case Law. An Easy Guide to Case Law Freemont Weeks was suspected of using the United States mail system to distribute chances in a lottery.
however, upheld the statements by Weeks and ruled in favor of him in Weeks v. United States. The Case Profile of weeks v. United States The.
A Study of the Case of Fremont Weeks Versus the United States of America PAGES 3. WORDS View Full Essay. More essays like this: Not sure what I'd do without @Kibin - Alfredo Alvarez, student @ Miami University.
Exactly what I needed. - Jenna Kraig, student @. Facts of the case. Police entered the home of Fremont Weeks and seized papers which were used to convict him of transporting lottery tickets through the mail.
This was done without a search warrant. Weeks took action against the police and petitioned for the return of his private possessions. "Weeks v. United States." Oyez, 6 Sep. A Study of the Case of Fremont Weeks Versus the United States of America ( words, 3 pages) Weeks v.
United StatesThe United States Supreme Court Case of Weeks v. Transcript of Weeks v. United States () General Information Plaintiff: Fremont Weeks Weeks v. United States () Fremont Weeks U.S. Police Previous Supreme Court Case Discussion Questions In circumstances of clear and present danger, should warrantless searches be allowed?Download