Case Facts and Summary
Police officers arrived at the house of Fremont Weeks on December 21, 1911, located a key, and entered his premises. However, that entry lacked Week’s consent, presence, or search warrant since he was at work and thus, remained unaware of such events (Vile, 2010.). Upon entering his premises, the police officers searched the property and consequently took custody of papers alongside other personal items. Along with a United States marshal the police, went back later to Week’s premises same day, got hold of admittance from a boarder and lacking a search warrant or consent repeatedly, took possession of additional letters as well as envelopes. In connection with those two visits, the police officers did not obtain a search warrant that would guarantee their activities (Vile, 2010.).
Week’s Arrest and Charges
Later, Weeks got arrested again without a warrant, at the place of work and thereof charged, partly, for making use of the mail system with the aim of sending lottery tickets (Vile, 2010.). Without awaiting trial, Weeks filed a petition demanding the return of his papers as well as other personal property, claiming that his private property was obtained unlawfully and held, which violated his rights under the United States Constitution (Vile, 2010.). However, Week's proposition was denied in part by the lower court, which ordered the return of a few, but not all, of the confiscated personal property. Although illegally seized, all property that applied to pending criminal charges against him was not only retained but also put in evidence, despite Week’s objection (Vile, 2010.).
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The Trial
In the initial trial, Weeks was eventually convicted of a criminal charge of illegally utilizing the mail system as well as for the reasons of transporting lottery tickets. Illegally seized evidence from Week’s home was a vital factor that led to his conviction (Vile, 2010). While trying to appeal to the United States Supreme Court, Weeks indicated that the process of seizing of his private property and confiscating his documents violated not only his 4th but also his 5th Amendment rights (Rush, 2000). However, the United States Supreme Court considered the fourth amendment during judgment.
The Precedents and Laws used by the Court
Weeks manifested the beginning of the Exclusionary Rule, through which illegally seized evidence is barred from court. Proceeding to such court’s decision, the supposition had been that the needs or demands of justice prevailed over the rights of individuals whose personal property had been illegally seized as evidence (Tanenhaus & Gale, 2008). Based on federal charges, Weeks was tried and convicted for charges of illegally sending lottery tickets using mails. For the duration of his trial, Weeks demanded that his personal effects needed to be returned, which had been apprehended as evidence through warrantless searches by a federal marshal and state officers including their omission as evidence in the trial (Vile, 2010) . Weeks appealed the case to the United States Supreme Court after the lower court refused to respond positively. The case was called on the basis that making use of illegal evidence violated personal rights spelled out within the Fourth and Fifth amendments, which seek to protect individuals against unlawful government infringement on personal liberty and private property (Tanenhaus & Gale, 2008).
Justice William R. Day depended solely on the Fourth Amendment during his writing for the unanimous Court in the process of making attempts to reverse judgments made by the lower court. Day indicated the significance of the federal courts' cooperating in the process of protecting property and liberty rights indicated in the Amendment against illegal intrusions (Thomas & Blackstone, 2012). In his argument, Day pointed that warrantless searches followed by the refusal of returning Week's personal property violated his constitutional rights. Even though Weeks decision introduced the formal implementation of the Exclusionary Rule, the resolution failed to integrate the Fourth Amendment into the Fourteenth rendering it active against certain states (Thomas & Blackstone, 2012).
Impacts of Weeks vs. United States in the Court System and Conclusion
All through exclusion, commencing just six years following Weeks vs. United States decision, the Court applied standards that were much looser in the view of the Fourth Amendment (Saltzman & National Lawyers Guild, 2003). Therefore, the court was forced to allow such conveniences to be regarded as warrantless vehicle searches. More importantly, recent decades has seen the Court excluding an array of fine positions from the warrant obligations, together with airborne police surveillance, searches of garbage bins and open fields privately owned as well as arrests compounded on unidentified tips that correctly reflect the activities of a suspect (Saltzman & National Lawyers Guild, 2003). Because individuals who depend exclusively on the Fourth's protections frequently appear to be individuals having most to conceal, has tended to downgrade the Fourth Amendment to secondary status within the pantheon of individual rights (Saltzman & National Lawyers Guild, 2003). However, it is important to note a timeless interpretation of the Fourth Amendment as the right to be left alone, an understanding that is widely valued and accepted by civilized individuals (Rush, 2000).
References
Rush, G. E. (2000). The dictionary of criminal justice . Guilford, CT: Dushkin/McGraw-Hill.
Saltzman, S., & National Lawyers Guild. (2003). Civil rights litigation and attorney fees annual handbook . St. Paul, Minn.: West.
Tanenhaus, D. S., & Gale (Firm). (2008). Encyclopedia of the Supreme Court of the United States . Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA.
Thomas, N. J., & Blackstone, A. (2012). Free Speech and the United States Supreme Court Case of Brandenburg vs. Ohio. SSRN Electronic Journal . doi:10.2139/ssrn.1990351
Vile, J. (2010.). Weeks v. United States (1914). Encyclopedia of the Fourth Amendment . doi:10.4135/9781452234243.n905
