English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

The two cases, Bock v. City of Cincinnati and Tapp v. Same,' recently considered together by the Court of Appeals of Ohio, Hamilton County, stir interest in the question of the admissibility of evidence obtained by illegal search and seizure. Two views upon the question are now somewhat crystallized; each has commanded analysis and criticism by eminent jurists on the bench and off.2 A large majority of the courts in this country have held that evidence otherwise competent is admissible notwithstanding the unlawful method by which it has been obtained.3 On the other hand, a respectable minority, headed by the United States Supreme Court, have taken the view that full effect can be given to the constitutional guaranties against unreasonable search and seizure and self incrimination only by making such evidence inadmissible against the accused party. The Illinois Supreme Court has aligned itself with the latter group.S However, those courts which follow the minority rule have split on the question as to whether, as a matter of procedure, a defendant must make a motion prior to the trial for the return of, or to suppress, the evidence obtained by the illegal search and seizure. Two views are evident in the decisions. One line of authority adheres to the rule that this is simply a question of competency of the evidence and, as in cases of other such evidential questions, it is proper to make an objection to evidence at the time it is sought to be introduced at the trial. Some of the courts taking this view regard it as the only proper

The Necessity of Motion before Trial to Suppress Evidence Obtained by Illegal Search and Seizure