Wolf v. Colorado case brief summary
338 U.S. 25 (1949)
CASE FACTS
Defendant was convicted of a state offense in a state court that had admitted evidence that would have been inadmissible in a federal prosecution because it was obtained in violation of the U.S. Constitutional Amendment IV. Defendant asserted that the evidence should have been excluded because its seizure was improper and violated due process under the U.S. Constitutional amend XIV.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
The Court held that in a prosecution in a state court for a state crime U.S. Constitutional Amendment XIV did not forbid the admission of evidence obtained by an unreasonable search and seizure because the exclusionary rule was a federal remedy and not a constitutional rule.
Recommended Supplements for Criminal Procedure Criminal Procedure: Examples & Explanations, Sixth Edition
Emanuel Law Outline: Criminal Procedure
338 U.S. 25 (1949)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Defendant was convicted of a state
offense in a state court that had admitted evidence that would have
been inadmissible in a federal prosecution because it was obtained in
violation of the U.S. Constitutional Amendment IV. The Supreme
Court of Colorado sustained the conviction. The Court granted
defendant certiorari to review that decision.CASE FACTS
Defendant was convicted of a state offense in a state court that had admitted evidence that would have been inadmissible in a federal prosecution because it was obtained in violation of the U.S. Constitutional Amendment IV. Defendant asserted that the evidence should have been excluded because its seizure was improper and violated due process under the U.S. Constitutional amend XIV.
DISCUSSION
- The Supreme Court of Colorado sustained the conviction.
- The Court affirmed and determined that the exclusionary rule was not constitutional, but was a remedy fashioned for use by the federal courts.
- The Court determined that it was not the only remedy that could address an improper search and seizure, and the rule did not rise to the standard of due process applicable to the states under U.S. Constitutional amend XIV.
CONCLUSION
The Court held that in a prosecution in a state court for a state crime U.S. Constitutional Amendment XIV did not forbid the admission of evidence obtained by an unreasonable search and seizure because the exclusionary rule was a federal remedy and not a constitutional rule.
Recommended Supplements for Criminal Procedure Criminal Procedure: Examples & Explanations, Sixth Edition
Emanuel Law Outline: Criminal Procedure
No comments:
Post a Comment