Case: Weeks v. United States 232 U.S. 383 (1914)
Law
Topic:
Weeks v. United States 232 U.S. 383 (1914)
Facts of the Case:
Acting on their own accord police officers arrested Fremont Weeks, at the Union Station in Kansas City, Missouri where was an employee of the express company. Other police officers went into Week’s house and following a tip of from the neighbor on where he puts his keys, opened Week’s house searched his rooms, took certain papers and possessions as well as articles they found and turned the evidence in to the US Marshall. The same day the Marshall, thinking he might find additional evidence, went into Week’s house and was admitted into the house by someone who was in took certain letters and envelopes her found. All of these were done without a search warrant. The seized documents were later used to convict Weeks of transportation of lottery tickets through mail which was illegal. Weeks took action against police and demanded they return his personal possessions.
Holding:
(J. William Day) The fourth amendment prohibits against unlawful searches and seizures, and this applied to Weeks, as such the evidence seized was to be excluded from his prosecution. It was held that seizure of the items from Weeks’ residence violated his express constitutional rights, the refusal to further return his items was in violation of the forth amendment rights. The officers did not follow the due process in trying to obtain the evidence as such the exclusionary rule was applied.
Concurring Opinion:
In this case, every Justice joined the majority opinion in advance and with no reservation. There are no concurring opinions.
Dissenting Opinion:
No justice withheld their vote and they joined in full without any reservation the majority opinion. There was no dissenting opinion
What is the Court trying to protect:
Wether the search and seizure of Week’s home violated the fourth amendment rights. This was the first time the exclusionary rule was applied, and it sought to establish a precedence of due process in arresting and prosecution of any defendant compelling the police to follow the procedures of arrest to the latter.
