2) 4A Exclusionary Rule Flashcards
required to exclude evidence
1) constitutional violation that triggers exclusion AND
2) standing AND
3) exclusionary rule applies / no exceptions
standing: rule
to exclude, violation must be directed against D’s PERSONAL const rights NOT SOMEONE ELSE’S
ask: did D have rep? (or was it someone else’s?)
includes even if evidence found in illegal search of someone else is used against D, or D gave it to the person to carry
required: constitutional violation that triggers exception: what does not?
violating knock + announce
standing: def
D has standing if he has ownership or a possessory interest in the place searched or the item seized
standing: cars
different rules for search and seizure
standing: cars: search
only owner or person in possession of car (renter) can challenge search – not passengers
standing: cars: sz
unreasonable sz of car is an unreasonable sz of al passengers!
(this could then become poison tree for a subsequent search)
standings: guests
1) overnight guest in someone’s home: yes standing
2) short-term commercial visitors: no standing
3) non-overnight guests: no standing
exclusionary rule: general
if D has standing + unreasonable sezrch/sz, D can invoke exclusionary rule to prohibit gvt from introducing evidence obtained as direct or indirect result of unreasonable search
exclusionary rule: limitations
1) impleachment
2) good faith exception
exclusionary rule limitations: impeachment: def
does not apply to use of tainted evidence to impeach D’s testimony (can’t hide behind exclusionary rule to lie)
exclusionary rule: limitations: good faith: def
when police act in good faith reliance on warrant subsequently ruled invalid the evidnece seized will NOT be exlcuded
if reasonable officer would rely on warrant then good faith
bc: purpose is to deter police misconduct
exclusionary rule: limitations: good faith: exceptions
good faith exception does NOT apply if reasoanble officer would know not to rely on warrant
exclusionary rule: limitations: good faith: exception: reasonable officer would know not to rely on warrant when:
1) police lie or mislead magistrate to get warrant (any officer lying counts)
2) warrant is so facially defective that no RO would rely on it
3) RO would know magistrate not neutral / detached
exclusionary rule: limitations: good faith: EXTENSIONS
still can be good faith (so no exclusion) if:
1) police mistake w purging warrant from database
2) search conducted based on judicial precedent that changes before thre trial
exclusionary rule: limitations: good faith: EXTENSIONS: police mistake: rule
error must be isolated negligence attenuated from the point of arrest (failure to purge warrant from database)
fruit of the poisonous tree: rule
any additional evidence derived from initial illegality (inc oral sts, physical objects) falls w/in the scope of the exclusionary rule as tainted fruit of poisonous tree
but-for connection and violation of D’s rights
fruit of the poisionous tree: exclusion
miranda violations
Miranda violation: result
confession is inadmissible in prosecution’s case and chief
but evidence derived from the st still admissible, not excluded!
fruit of posionous tree: exceptions: BOP
gvt
fruit of poisonous tree: exceptions: list
1) independent source
2) inevitable dy
3) attenuation
independent source: def
(what would normally be fruit of poisonous tree is still admissible if)
if evidence is obtained from a lawful independent source, even if police acted illegally to confirm the location of the evidence
independent source; rationale
no but-for link btwn violation and sz of evidence (ex. they were going to get a warrant later)
inevitable dy: def
(what would normally be fruit of poisonous tree is still admissible if)
police would have inevitably discovered the evidence through a different + independent source
gvt must prove truly inevitable
have gears of independent dy already een set in mxn?
