4th Am Exclusionary Rule & Exceptions Flashcards
the exclusionary rule (main points)
• governing rule: material obtained in violation of the Constitution cannot be introduced at trial against a criminal defendant (Weeks)
o **proponents argue that it stems from the Constitution as part of the 4th Am and is not simply a “supervisory judicial construct” (Mapp)
o the ER applies to the states as an essential ingredient of the 4th Am right (Mapp)
• **note: these are mostly 5-4 splits and the divide is (1) “it just about police deterrence” vs (2) “it’s about all 5 Mapp factors” - for all inquiries we must weigh these competing considerations!
police negligence exception
• rule: when police mistakes result from negligence rather than deliberate conduct, systemic error, gross negligence, or reckless disregard of constitutional requirements, the remedy for a constitutional violation occurring as a result of such a violation is not exclusion (Herring)
o **the ER is not a given just because a S&S was unreasonable, it applies only when:
(1) it results in appreciable deterrence of police misconduct, and
(2) where the benefits of deterrence outweigh the substantial societal costs
**remember the court is split on when this rule applies so this is only one POV
independent source exception (common situations, key points)
o (1) Independent Source (Murray)
concept: allows prosecutorial use of evidence tainted by an initial unlawful search/seizure where such evidence is later seized through a lawful procedure wholly independent of the prior illegality
Common Situations
• when another law enforcement agency violates the warrant req but a separate agency does it properly and gets a warrant
• where you unlawfully enter and see contraband, but then you get a warrant to come back and seize it – this will be lawful so long as none of the info used to secure the warrant is connected in any way to the initial unlawful entry
the ultimate question: whether the search pursuant to the warrant was in fact a genuinely independent source of the information and tangible evidence at issue
• this would not be the case if the agents’ decision to seek the warrant was prompted by what they had seen during the [warrantless] entry, or if the information obtained during the [warrantless] entry was presented to the Magistrate and affected his [or her] decision to issue the warrant
the State bears the burden to show that its decision to obtain the warrant was not based upon the illegal search and that it did not rely upon any information discovered in the course of the illegal search in obtaining the warrant
inevitable discovery exception
o (2) Inevitable Discovery (Nix)
concept: if it would have been discovered anyway, it should not be excluded
the point of the ER is to put the gov’t in the same place it would have been absent the illegal search (so they would have found it anyway)
the State bears the burden of demonstrating by a preponderance of the evidence that the information/evidence ultimately or inevitably would have been discovered by lawful means low bar
inadequate causal connection (attenuation) exception
3 factors
o (3) Inadequate Causal Connection/Attenuation Doctrine (Brown)
concept: if the illegality/the taint has been sufficiently washed away by an intervening event, it should not be excluded
factors in assessing attenuation of the taint
• (1) temporal proximity
o if more than a couple days have passed, that leans in favor of attenuation
• (2) the presence of intervening circumstances
o consider whether the defendant has been released from custody and whether they have talked to their attorney – both of those would lean in favor of attenuation
• (3) the purpose and flagrancy of the official misconduct
o how egregious was the police officer’s actions – worse off leans against attenuation
the burden is upon the state to demonstrate sufficient attenuation of the taint
the fact that ∆ was mirandized is insufficient
good faith exception (and exceptions to the exception)
o (4) Good Faith (Leon) - BROADEST EXCEPTION
concept: if the officer’s reliance on the magistrate’s probable cause determination in issuing the warrant and on the technical sufficiency of the warrant must are objectively reasonable, we will admit the evidence
the evidence will still be suppressed despite the good faith exception appearing to be applicable if (non-exhaustive list)
• (1) law enforcement misled the magistrate through use of an affidavit that was known to be false or as to which there was a reckless disregard for the truth,
• (2) where the magistrate wholly abandons the judicial role,
o i.e. acts as a “rubber stamp” for the prosecution
• (3) where the warrant is issued based upon an affidavit so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render official belief in its existence entirely unreasonable, OR
• (4) warrant so facially deficient (ex: failing to particularly describe the place to be search of items to be seized) that reliance would not be reasonable
competing considerations for exclusion
o side 1: purposes of the ER (Mapp)
deters police misconduct
judicial integrity – concern that the courts become tainted if persons are convicted with illegally obtained evidence
excluding unreliable evidence that could lead to convicting innocent persons
sends a message to the public that government will not profit from lawless unconstitutional behavior, thus reducing the risk of public mistrust of government as a lawless actor that profits from its unconstitutional actions
the constitutional rights of the individual defendant are not otherwise adequately being honored
o side 2: objections to the ER (Scalia – Hudson)
**judicially crafted not constitutionally required
the guilty go free – paraphrasing Justice Cardozo, the criminal should not go free because the constable has blundered
the process becomes less focused on seeking the truth
law enforcement becomes more difficult, more costly (thus more acts of criminality engaged in and not prevented by law enforcement)
the existence of the exclusionary rule results in courts more narrowly interpreting the protections of the 4th Amendment because they are seeking to avoid the exclusion of evidence against defendants, thus limiting constitutional rights
the exclusionary rule is unnecessary – there are other adequate alternatives
established precedent exception
• rule: evidence obtained during a search conducted in reasonable reliance on binding precedent is not subject to the exclusionary rule (Davis)
who can seek exclusion?
• rule: a person may only raise a 4th Amendment challenge seeking suppression of the evidence if he or she has had his or her own Fourth Amendment rights infringed by the search and seizure which he seeks to challenge (Rakas)
o **and the fact that law enforcement acts, knowing that you have no authority to challenge the search, does not alter this result (Payner)
o note that passengers in a vehicle have the authority to challenge a stop, however, remember that PC to search a vehicle includes passengers’ belongings contained therein that are capable of concealing the object of the search
how does the ER apply to guests in home?
• rule: an overnight guest in a home may claim the protection of the 4th Amendment, but one who is merely present with the consent of the householder for a short period of time may not (Olson)
o common factors to determine guest status:
(1) the relationship between the homeowner and the guest,
(2) the context or duration of the visit,
(3) the frequency or duration of previous visits, and
(4) whether the guest keeps any possessions in the home
how does “reasonable expectation of privacy” factor in? (rental car application and friend’s belongings application)
• rule: as a general rule, someone in otherwise lawful possession and control of a rental car has a reasonable expectation of privacy in it even if the rental agreement does not list him or her as an authorized driver (Byrd)
o a vehicle thief would not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a stolen car
• rule: no reasonable expectation of privacy in contraband hidden in spouse’s purse (Rawlings)
knock and announce violations
concept: you will likely not get evidence suppressed with just an objection to “no knock and announce” **regardless of whether or not they show exigent circumstances – so you’re better off just pursuing a civil rights claim
