4. Search and Seizure - Issue Four

Question 1

Exclusionary rule

Answer 1

Evidence, whether physical or testimonial, that is obtained in violation of a federal statutory or constitutional provision is inadmissible in court against the individual whose rights were violated.

Question 2

Case-in-chief vs. cross-examination:

Answer 2

Unconstitutionally obtained evidence is excluded from the prosecutor’s case in chief only; it may be introduced to impeach the defendant’s testimony on cross-examination.

Question 3

“Knock and Announce” violations:

Answer 3

A failure to comply with the “knock and announce” rule does not require suppression of evidence that is subsequently discovered.

Question 4

To trigger the exclusionary rule, erroneous police conduct must be:

Answer 4

1. Deliberate,
2. Reckless, or
3. Grossly negligent

Question 5

What if a officer’s mistake is reasonable?

Answer 5

The exclusionary rule does not apply to evidence obtained erroneously when executing a search warrant, provided an officer’s mistake was reasonable.

Question 6

To nullify “fruit of the poisonous tree,” prosecutors must show a break in the causal link between the original illegality and the criminal evidence that is later discovered.

Three doctrines can achieve the requisite break:

Answer 6

1. “INDEPENDENT SOURCE”: This doctrine applies where there is a source for the discovery and seizure of the evidence that is distinct from the original illegality.
2. “INEVITABLE DISCOVERY”: This doctrine applies where the evidence would necessarily have been discovered through lawful means.
3. “ATTENUATION”: This doctrine admits derivative evidence where the passage of time and intervening events “purge the taint” of the original illegality and restore the defendant’s free will.