First case: Weeks v. US

Facts

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). 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

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. 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

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 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. 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

The court ruling against the police department 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 this case, Week being the plaintiff is to be granted a win over the police department for they had no warrant to even enter his property. 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 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.

Second case: Marbury v. Madison (1804)

Facts

Marbury being the plaintiff in this case where he accuses Madison of not providing the required documents to him after being appointed the justice of the peace in Columbian district by the president. The United States Supreme court of the landmark has to act according to the plaintiff's wish since he had the mandate to represent the country in Columbia but the act was hindered by the decision by Madison to not release the document.

Issue

Marbury filed a case against Madison directly to the Supreme Court without having it being reviewed by a lower federal court. According to the law, a case is heard in the Supreme Court through three different ways (Mountjoy, 2009). These three ways are by direct means to the Supreme Court, through a lower federal court to the Supreme Court, and finally through the state court to the Supreme Court. Appellate jurisdiction is exercised he in the last two options while the original jurisdiction is exercised in the first option as used by Marbury in his petition. In his defense, Marbury stated that the rule of law in 1789 gave permission to congress to enhance Supreme Court with original jurisdiction to cases that are ordered by the Supreme Court. This order led to issues that hindered decision making over the petition by Marbury (Mountjoy, 2009). Such issues are if the constitution’s article III allows for original jurisdiction, can the congress alter it or is the list exhaustive that the congress cannot alter? If the list is exhaustive and the Congress modifies it anyway, is it the congress or the constitution that wins the conflict? Lastly, who decides which party wins the conflict? To address the last question, the theory of judicial review is applied.

Rule

The court ruled that Marbury had reserved to be allowed to use the commission whereas the court had little or no power to compel Madison is providing the documents as requested by the commission. The Chief Justice by the name of Marshall ruled the decision in accordance with the constitution of law where in the case of vested legal right there has to be a remedy to right that compels court actions.

Application

Any federal court has the special obligation of ensuring the lower courts and itself is satisfied by the decision it makes and therefore its own jurisdiction. The case on the floor of the court is jurisdictional and therefore the constitution has to be applied in every sense (Mountjoy, 2009). However, this only applies in case an interpretation to the case is required where a constitutional issue arises. Marshall determined that Supreme Court would rule considering the original jurisdiction as presented by the commission. Altering the original jurisdiction was unconstitutional and was against it in determining whether the case was a success for him.

Conclusion

Marbury had the right to win the case but the judiciary act section 13 prevented him from being granted the win since the act conflicts with Article III of the United States Constitution. The constitution gives the president the right to appoint any individual without any doubt of which Madison fails to agree on.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

References

Mountjoy, S. (2009). Marbury v. Madison: Establishing supreme court power. New York:           Chelsea House.

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

In Vile, J. R., & In Hudson, D. L. (2013). Encyclopedia of the Fourth Amendment. Thousand       Oaks, Calif: CQ Press.