周的律师辩称,当他们在没有获得证据的情况下进入他家时,警察违反了周的第四修正案对不合理搜查和扣押的保护。他们还辩称,允许在法庭上使用非法获得的证据会违反第四修正案的目的。律师代表政府辩称,逮捕是基于充分可能的原因。搜查中发现的证据证实了警察所怀疑的内容:周有罪,证据证明了这一点。因此,律师推断,它应该有资格在法庭上使用。法院威廉·戴在1914年2月24日作出的决定中,法院裁定在周的家中搜查和没收证据违反了他的第四修正案权利。法院表示,第四修正案的保护适用于“是否被指控犯罪”的人。官员需要逮捕令或同意搜查周的家。当法院拒绝归还被扣押的证据时,联邦政府也违反了周的第四修正案保护措施。在一次不合理的搜查中,法院驳回了政府的一个主要论点。政府的律师试图证明亚当斯诉纽约案和周案的相似之处。在亚当斯诉纽约案中,法院裁定,在进行合法,有保证的搜查时偶然查获的证据可以在法庭上使用。由于官员没有使用手令搜查周的家,法院拒绝适用在亚当斯诉纽约案中达成的裁决。大法官裁定非法查获的证据是“来自有毒树的果实。”它不能在联邦法院使用。允许地方检察官使用这些证据定罪周违反了第四修正案的意图。

英国谢菲尔德大学论文代写:亚当斯诉纽约案

Zhou’s lawyers argued that when they entered his home without evidence, the police violated Zhou’s Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. They also argued that allowing the use of illegally obtained evidence in court would violate the purpose of the Fourth Amendment. Lawyers on behalf of the government argued that arrests were based on a full-featured reason. The evidence found in the search confirmed what the police suspected: Zhou was guilty and the evidence proved this. Therefore, the lawyer concluded that it should be eligible for use in court. In a decision made by the court, William Day, on February 24, 1914, the court ruled that the search and confiscation of evidence at the home of the week violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The court stated that the protection of the Fourth Amendment applies to those who are “accused of crimes”. Officials need an arrest warrant or consent to search the home of the week. When the court refused to return the evidence of the detention, the federal government also violated the Fourth Amendment protection measures of the week. In an unreasonable search, the court rejected a major argument of the government. The government’s lawyers tried to prove the similarities between Adams v. The New York case and the weekly case. In the case of Adams v. New York, the court ruled that the evidence seized by chance during a legal, guaranteed search could be used in court. The court refused to apply the ruling reached in Adams v. New York because the officer did not use the warrant to search the home of the week. The judge ruled that the evidence seized illegally was “from the fruit of the poisonous tree.” It cannot be used in federal courts. Allowing local prosecutors to use these evidences to convict the week violates the intent of the Fourth Amendment.

发表评论

电子邮件地址不会被公开。 必填项已用*标注