What happened in the wurie case?
Wurie was subsequently charged with drug and firearm offenses. He moved to suppress the evidence obtained from the search of the apartment, but the District Court denied the motion, and Wurie was convicted.
Who is Brima Wurie?
Boston police officers arrested Brima Wurie in 2007 for distributing crack cocaine. The court found Wurie guilty of possession of narcotics with intent to distribute, distributing cocaine base, and being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition.
Which court case established the exclusionary rule?
Mapp v. Ohio
Ohio. In 1914, the Supreme Court established the ‘exclusionary rule’ when it held in Weeks v. United States that the federal government could not rely on illegally seized evidence to obtain criminal convictions in federal court.
Who won Payton v New York?
New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980), was a United States Supreme Court case concerning warrantless entry into a private home in order to make a felony arrest. The Court struck down a New York statute providing for such warrantless entries because the Fourth Amendment draws a firm line at the entrance to the house.
What happened in Wilson v Arkansas?
Arkansas, 514 U.S. 927 (1995), is a United States Supreme Court decision in which the Court held that the traditional, common-law-derived “knock and announce” rule for executing search warrants must be incorporated into the “reasonableness” analysis of whether the actual execution of the warrant is/was justified under …
Who won Kyllo v US?
United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001), held in a 5–4 decision which crossed ideological lines that the use of a thermal imaging, or FLIR, device from a public vantage point to monitor the radiation of heat from a person’s home was a “search” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, and thus required a warrant.
What is Miranda ruling?
The Miranda rule, which the Supreme Court recognized as a constitutional right in its 1966 decision Miranda v. Arizona, requires that suspects be informed of their Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights “prior to interrogation” if their statements are to be used against them in court.
Who won Hudson v Michigan?
Michigan, 547 U.S. 586 (2006), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a violation of the Fourth Amendment requirement that police officers knock, announce their presence, and wait a reasonable amount of time before entering a private residence (the knock-and-announce requirement) does not …
Why was respondent Wurie arrested in this case?
In No. 13–212, respondent Wurie was arrested after police observed him participate in an apparent drug sale. At the police station, the officers seized a cell phone from Wurie’s person and noticed that the phone was receiving multiple calls from a source identified as “my house” on its external screen.
Can exigent circumstances justify a search of Wurie’s phone?
2 In Wurie’s case, for example, the dissenting First Circuit judge argued that exigent circumstances could have justified a search of Wurie’s phone. See 728 F. 3d 1, 17 (2013) (opinion of Howard, J.) (discussing the repeated unanswered calls from “my house,” the suspected location of a drug stash).
What was the decision in the Wurie v Texas case?
He moved to suppress the evidence obtained from the search of the apartment. The District Court denied the motion, and Wurie was convicted. The First Circuit reversed the denial of the motion to suppress and vacated the relevant convictions.
How did the police find the gun in Wurie’s house?
The officers opened the phone, accessed its call log, determined the number associated with the “my house” label, and traced that number to what they suspected was Wurie’s apartment. They secured a search warrant and found drugs, a firearm and ammunition, and cash in the ensuing search.