Rights of the Accused

Question 1

Weeks v. US (1914)

Answer 1

Established the Exclusionary Rule and the Silver Platter Doctrine, where law enforcement can use evidence handed to them by state authorities “on a silver platter”.

Question 2

Wolf v. CO (1949)

Answer 2

The Fourteenth Amendment did not require states to limit or exclude illegally seized evidence in court

Question 3

Mapp v. Ohio (1961)

Answer 3

A search without a search warrant violates the Fourth Amendment, and thus all evidence seized during that time cannot be used in court.

Question 4

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)

Answer 4

The Court incorporated the Sixth Amendment’s right to counsel to the states.

Question 5

Escobedo v. IL (1964)

Answer 5

Criminals are entitled to counsel as soon as reasonably possible.

Question 6

Miranda v. AZ (1966)

Answer 6

Since Miranda was unaware of his right to counsel, his conviction was unconstitutional. All who are accused of a crime must now be informed of their “Miranda rights”.

Question 7

Terry v. OH (1968)

Answer 7

Stop and frisk does not violate an individual’s Fourth Amendment rights. In order to search, officers must have “reasonable suspicion” and “probable cause” to make an arrest.

Question 8

US v. Leon (1984)

Answer 8

Evidence that is obtained using a search watrant that is later found to be defective can still be used in court. This is known as the “Good Faith” Exception.

Question 9

NJ v. T.L.O (1986)

Answer 9

The Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable search and seizure applies to school officials; “reasonable suspicion” is required before conducting a search, however.

Question 10

Florida v. Powell (2010)

Answer 10

The wording of Miranda Rights does not matter as long as the one who is arrested is aware of the rights therein.