ABSTRACT
CAPSULE: Evidence seized by federal law enforcement officers in violation of the Fourth Amendment is not admissible in a federal criminal prosecution. FACTS: Weeks was arrested for using the mail to transport tickets for a lottery. Officers searched Weeks’ home without a warrant and seized various articles and papers that were then turned over to the United States Marshals Service. Later in the day, police officers returned with a Marshal and again searched Weeks’ home without a warrant and seized letters and other articles. Weeks was convicted of unlawful use of the mail. ISSUE: Is evidence illegally obtained by federal law enforcement officers admissible in court? NO. SUPREME COURT DECISION: Evidence illegally seized by federal law enforcement officers is not admissible in federal criminal prosecutions. REASON: The Fourth Amendment freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures applies “to all invasions on the part of the government and its employees of the sanctity of a man’s home and the privacies of life. It is not the breaking of his doors and the rummaging of his drawers that constitutes the essence of the offense; but it is the invasion of his indefeasible right of personal security, personal liberty and private property.” CASE SIGNIFICANCE: This decision excluded illegally obtained evidence from use in federal prosecutions. This rule was extended to state criminal prosecutions in 1961 in Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961), making illegally obtained evidence inadmissible in both state and federal courts. It is interesting to note that from 1914 to 1960, federal courts admitted evidence of a federal crime if it was obtained illegally by state officers, as long as there was no connivance with federal officers. This questionable practice was known as the “silver platter doctrine.” In 1960, the Court rejected the “silver platter doctrine” (Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206), holding that the Fourth Amendment prohibited the use of illegally obtained evidence in federal prosecutions whether it was obtained by federal or state officers. The Court followed the year after with Mapp, holding that illegally obtained evidence was inadmissible, no matter who collected it or in what court it was presented.
