Question

Assume that an applicable state statute makes it a crime for a private citizen to own or possess a machine gun. For approximately three weeks, police officer Joe Monday had had probable cause to believe that Lemuel "Lemme" Wastem, a private citizen, possessed an arsenal of machine guns in his apartment. Acting on this probable cause but without a warrant, Monday knocked on the door of Wastem's apartment late one evening as Wastem was writing a letter to his mother. Monday asked whether he could come in to talk to Wastem. Wastem let Monday in. Then, without Wastem's consent, Monday began searching the apartment. He proceeded down a hall, through a closed door to Wastem's bedroom, and opened the also-closed door to Wastem's bedroom closet. There, Monday found several machine guns sitting on the floor of the closet. He arrested Wastem for an alleged violation of the statute mentioned above. In a pre-trial motion, Wastem's attorney has asked that the court apply the exclusionary rule and suppress the evidence yielded by Monday's search of Wastem's apartment. Should the evidence be suppressed?

Answer 1

YES, BECAUSE THE UNCONSENTED SEARCH DID NOT FALL WITHIN THE EXCEPTIONS TO THE GENERAL RULE THAT WARRANTLESS SEARCHES ARE UNREASONABLE.

Step-by-step explanation:

The exclusionary rule is a legal rule, based on constitutional law in the United States, that prevents evidence collected or analyzed in violation of the defendant's constitutional rights from being used in a court of law.

The exclusionary rule prevents the government from using most evidence gathered in violation of the United States Constitution.

The purpose of the rule is to deter law enforcement officers from conducting searches or seizures in violation of the Fourth Amendment (is part of the Bill of Rights and It prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures) and to provide remedies to defendants whose rights have been infringed.

Since officer Joe Monday searched Wastem's apartment without his consent and without a warrant, therefore, YES, the evidence should be suppressed BECAUSE THE UNCONSENTED SEARCH DID NOT FALL WITHIN THE EXCEPTIONS TO THE GENERAL RULE THAT WARRANTLESS SEARCHES ARE UNREASONABLE.