Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
Evidence obtained in violation of the constitutional guarantees is inadmissible.
Charles H. Cahan and 15 other persons were charged with conspiring to engage in horse-race bookmaking and related offenses in violation of section 337a of the Penal Code. Six of the defendants pleaded guilty. After a trial without a jury, the court found one defendant not guilty and each of the other defendants guilty as charged. Cahan was one of the defendants found guilty. He was granted probation for a period of five years on the condition that he spend the first 90 days of his probationary period in the county jail and pay a $ 2,000 fine. He appealed from the order granting him probation and the order denying his motion for a new trial.
Was evidence obtained in violation of the constitutional guarantees admissible?
The court reversed the orders of the trial court. The court held that evidence obtained in violation of the constitutional guarantees was inadmissible. The adoption of the exclusionary rule opened the door to the development of workable rules governing searches and seizures and the issuance of warrants that would protect both the rights guaranteed by the constitutional provisions and the interest of society in the suppression of crime.