Weeks vs United States Case

Facts of Weeks vs United States Case

In Weeks vs United States, Weeks an employee of an express firm filed a case against the police officers who allegedly broke into his home since they had no warrant of arrest and confiscated his personal belongings such as envelopes and other important documents. Police were investigating a criminal action where Weeks had used the mail services to transport lottery ticket which was against the rule of law (Hall and Ely, 2011). Writers who offer law essay help at Edudorm essay writing service notes that in the United States, any search by the police or any other individual must involve a search warrant ordered by a court but the police officers broke the law by accessing the Plaintiff’s home without one.

Issue on Weeks vs United States Case

The United States Supreme court asserted that the local police department of Kansas City had violated the law by accessing a private residential area without a warrant according to the Fourth Amendment. It is a violation of the law for a police officer to obtain another person’s documents against his/her wishes. In Weeks vs United States, the Supreme Court optioned to compel the local police officer to return the documents unless he has the warrant to have the documents (Hall and Ely, 2011). The police officers had also given the documents to the marshals and even went a step further to the home to get more evidence on the same day while still without a warrant. The due Process Clause to the Fourteenth Amendment needs to be interpreted to integrate the fourth amendment and also the remedy to the exclusionary rule in order to have a single rule to be applied in the United States. Using the fourth Amendment rule on the exclusionary rule, use of wrongly obtained evidence is wrong and can amount to a prosecution of the individual.

Rule on Weeks vs United States Case

The court ruled that relying on good faith is allowed under the exclusionary rule and therefore the police officers are allowed to search premises without a search warrant if the situation does allow. This is however against the magistrates wish since the probable cause of action has misled the court on how the evidence was obtained. The exclusionary rule in Weeks vs United States is there to prevent the police force misconduct such as illegal search rather than to prosecute the judges and magistrates who allow the use of false acquired evidence in a court session and under oath (Hall and Ely, 2011). Good faith is never applied where a court magistrate has used force information in decision making and where the warrant has not been obtained to allow a search of private property. Experts who offer law dissertation writing help at Edudorm essay writing service indicates that the exclusionary rule under the Fourth Amendment should be used together in the Due Process. The Fourth Amendment should also be enforced in the federal court over the exclusion of any evidence obtained against the law. Any evidence obtained illegally should not be used in any court session. Protecting the Fourth Amendment will now be rendered not useful if the use of materials obtained legally will be used to rule over a case.

Application on Weeks vs United States Case

The court ruling against the police department in Weeks vs United States is clear and according to the rule of law and also the constitution since the use of evidence was warrantless. According to the Fourth Amendment clause, the court can agree and chose to disagree with the evidence presented to it by a defendant. In Weeks vs United States, Week being the plaintiff is to be granted a win over the police department for they had no warrant to even enter his property. Authors who offer legal case study help at Edudorm essay writing service points that the police department acting in good faith in obtaining the evidence might be considered however they have must prove beyond reasonable doubt reasons against the lack of search warrant. The relevant fact, in this case, is that the police have no grounds to search premises without a warrant and this case can lead to confiscation of their weapons if the good faith allowed by the court is not enough.

Conclusion

The plaintiff ought to win the Weeks vs United States case he presented before the court since the law acts on his side, therefore, bars the police force from accessing his home without a warrant.

Reference

Hall, K. L., & Ely, J. W. (2011). The Oxford companion to the Supreme Court of the United States. Oxford [etc.: Oxford University Press.