Legal question based on movie scene

[ManyBeers]

In a scene from a movie I recently watched a sister of a murdered girl breaks(kicks in a window) into the home of a neighbor who she suspects is her sister's murderer and steals property of his which would incriminate him in not only her sister's murder but others as well.
How would this property/evidence be treated by courts/legal system. basically is it admissable.
In the movie after she gives the evidence to an adult the next scene shows the police at the neighbor/suspects house, though he is gone. I assume this implies it was used as probable cause for a search warrant.

 

[AreaCode707]

Movies != life.

Not only would that be inadmissible, she'd be arrested for breaking and entering and they would not be able to use what she found as probably cause. The police would probably find another excuse to get a warrant though, with that information on hand.

 

[F1N3ST]

That one amendment prevents this, sixth I think .

But jury would probably find them guilty regardless.

 

[DingDingDao]

I was under the impression that search and seizure protection laws apply to actions of the state, e.g. police, FBI, etc. Actions of private parties (in this case, the sister) would not fall under that umbrella.

 

[F1N3ST]

I was under the impression that search and seizure protection laws apply to actions of the state, e.g. police, FBI, etc. Actions of private parties (in this case, the sister) would not fall under that umbrella.

I thought this too, not sure. It's a debacle. The price of the lawyers would decide the case :awe:

 

[Ns1]

How would said sister prove she didn't plant said evidence?

 

[DingDingDao]

I thought this too, not sure. It's a debacle. The price of the lawyers would decide the case :awe:

Okay, I found it. It's called the Exclusionary Rule, and it applies to agents of the state. The rule does not apply in situations where the search and seizure was executed by a private citizen.

 

[F1N3ST]

Okay, I found it. It's called the Exclusionary Rule, and it applies to agents of the state. The rule does not apply in situations where the search and seizure was executed by a private citizen.

Interesting, so the prosecution could use this evidence. I wonder if this has ever been done.

 

[Jeeebus]

yes, that is correct, and yes, it happens quite often.

 

[ManyBeers]

Interesting, so the prosecution could use this evidence. I wonder if this has ever been done.

I don't think it is that cut-and-dry.
Limitations on the exclusionary rule have included the following:

* Evidence unlawfully obtained from the defendant by a private person is admissible. The exclusionary rule is designed to protect privacy rights, with the Fourth Amendment applying specifically to government officials.[22]
* Evidence can only be suppressed if the illegal search violated the person's own (the person making the court motion) constitutional rights. The exclusionary rule does not apply to privacy rights of a third party.[23] However, there is a narrow exception to this standing requirement, the jus tertii standing exception. See, e.g., Singleton v. Wulff Et Al., 96 S. Ct. 2868, 428 U.S. 106 (U.S. 1976); The Assertion of Constitutional Jus Tertii: A Substantive Approach, Robert Allen Sedler, California Law Review, Vol. 70, No. 6 (Dec., 1982), pp. 1308-1344; Standing to Assert Constitutional Jus Tertii, 88 Harv.L.Rev. 423, (1974).
* The defendant cannot take advantage of the situation (police breaching rules) to turn the case to their advantage, in face of other evidence against them.[24]
* The Silver Platter doctrine applied before the Elkins v. United States ruling in 1960. State officials that obtained evidence illegally were allowed to turn over evidence to federal officials, and have that evidence be admitted into trial.[25]
* If the court determines that the evidence obtained in the unlawful search would have been found in a later, warranted search, the evidence may be brought forth in court.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusionary_rule

 

[ManyBeers]

Movies != life.

Not only would that be inadmissible, she'd be arrested for breaking and entering and they would not be able to use what she found as probably cause. The police would probably find another excuse to get a warrant though, with that information on hand.

The situation was in a movie but could easily be a real life scenario. Yes she could be arrested for burglary. But what is the legal standing of the property she took? That was the thrust of my inquiry. From what I've read it is very likely the stolen property could in fact be used as evidence and admissable.

 

[novasatori]

The situation was in a movie but could easily be a real life scenario. Yes she could be arrested for burglary. But what is the legal standing of the property she took? That was the thrust of my inquiry. From what I've read it is very likely the stolen property could in fact be used as evidence and admissable.

You better get rid of all your trophies lest your neighbors rob you.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

How was the Lovely Bones anyway? My gf is interested in the film. Rotten Tomatoes doesn't look too good for it though...

 

[ManyBeers]

How was the Lovely Bones anyway? My gf is interested in the film. Rotten Tomatoes doesn't look too good for it though...

For me it had too many CGI/disney effects, however, it did get me interested in reading the book, which I have not.

The reviews on IMDB are pretty bad mostly, but YMMV.

 

[FoBoT]

I was under the impression that search and seizure protection laws apply to actions of the state, e.g. police, FBI, etc. Actions of private parties (in this case, the sister) would not fall under that umbrella.

this
illegal search and seizure is prohibited by the state
as far as private citizens, it is still breaking/entering/theft etc, but it isn't a violation of the constitution as it would be if done by the state (police)

 

[jlee]

The situation was in a movie but could easily be a real life scenario. Yes she could be arrested for burglary. But what is the legal standing of the property she took? That was the thrust of my inquiry. From what I've read it is very likely the stolen property could in fact be used as evidence and admissable.

Yes, it would be admissible.

 

[Iron Woode]

there are only 2 real issues of interest to the Court.

1. chain of custody - did she (as someone with a vested interest) alter or damage the evidence

2. was she acting as an agent of the police.

either of these can get the evidence tossed.