The Admissibility of Illegally Obtained Evidence: A Detailed Study

This assignment delves into the critical legal issue of the admissibility of illegally obtained evidence. It examines the constitutional rights of individuals, particularly focusing on the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, and the Miranda rights. The assignment explores the implications of illegally obtained evidence in the context of law enforcement, including the requirement for search warrants and the exceptions thereto. It references key cases such as Miranda v. Arizona, Weeks v. United States, Mapp v. Ohio, and Singh v Singh [2016] EWHC 1432, to illustrate the legal principles. The assignment also explores the tension between the admissibility of evidence and the pursuit of justice, highlighting the importance of upholding constitutional rights. The analysis assumes that the inadmissibility of illegally obtained evidence does not hinder the pursuit of justice. The assignment provides a comprehensive understanding of the legal framework surrounding the admissibility of evidence, offering valuable insights into constitutional law and its practical application.

Final Project Issue: Admissibility of illegally obtained evidence.
Major points and major sources
The major points in the subject are that:
 Detained criminal suspects, prior to police questioning, must be made aware of their
constitutional right to an attorney and against self-incrimination.
 Illegally obtained evidence is inadmissible in a court of law.
 For any law enforcement officer to undertake a search on a person or his belongings and
seize such, the officer must have a search warrant but for the statutory exemptions.
Some of the major sources will comprise of:
1. The Constitution of the U.S.
2. Federal legislation on the admissibility of evidence.
3. Books and journals
4. Case laws will also be an important source of reference. Notable cases that will be used
include: Miranda v. Arizona (1966), Weeks v. United States (1914), Mapp v. Ohio (1961)
and the English case of Singh v Singh [2016] EWHC 1432, among others.
Major constitutional issues
Some of the constitutional issues that come in play within the project are:
1. The Fourth Amendment right “to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects,
against unreasonable searches and seizures.”
2. Miranda rights.
3. Any other fundamental constitutional right that would be infringed in the course of
obtaining evidence.
Any assumptions when making the analysis
The assumption intended in the analysis is that the inadmissibility of illegally obtained evidence
does not interfere with the attainment of justice for the prosecution.

References
The US Constitution, Amendment (IV)
Mapp v. Ohio (1961) 367 U.S. 643,
Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436
Singh v Singh [2016] EWHC 1432
Weeks v. United States (1914) 232 U.S. 383,