4th Amendment Remedies

Question 1

o Rakas v. Illinois (1978)

Answer 1

 Non-owning passengers could not challenge a car search that disclosed bullets in the glove compartment and a sawed off rifle under the seat, because only persons with legitimate expectation of privacy in the area searched may raise a 4th amendment claim

Question 2

o Minnesota v. Carter (1998)

Answer 2

 Persons from out of state who were in the apartment of another, simply to bag cocaine for 2.5 hours, and who had otherwise never been there, did not have a legitimate expectation of privacy and thus could not mount a 4th amendment challenge to the search
* Short term use of a home with the permission of the owner does not give rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy, at least when the home is being used for an illegal business purpose

Question 3

• THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE

Answer 3

 Court describes the exclusionary rule as a judicially created remedy designed to safeguard 4th amendment rights generally through its deterrent effect. Thus, application of the rule is subject to cost/benefit analysis

Question 4

o Fruit of the poisonous tree

Answer 4

 Derivative evidence can be excluded unless exception applies
 Subject to some exceptions, the exclusionary rule applies not only to evidence initially seized as a result of the primary government illegality, but also to secondary derivative evidence discovered as a result of the primary taint, also known as the fruit of the poisonous tree

Question 5

 Murray v. US (1988)

Answer 5

• Where evidence is first discovered during an illegal search, the independent source doctrine allows its admission so long as a later, lawful seizure is generally independent of an earlier, tainted one

Question 6

 Wong v. Sun (1963)

Answer 6

• Where evidence has been obtained by exploration of illegality, its inadmissible. On the other hand, an intervening act of free will, or other circumstances, may purge the evidence of its taint, thus allowing its admission. This is so, even if the governments illegal action was the cause of the evidence being gathered

Question 7

• To access attenuation, courts will examine (LFIA):

Answer 7

o (1) the length of time between illegality and fruit
o (2) flagrancy of the misconduct
o (3) any intervening causes of seizure
o (4) any act of free will by the suspect

Question 8

 US v. Leon

Answer 8

• The court holds that where law enforcement act in reasonable, good faith reliance on a search warrant that is later found to be invalid, the improperly seized evidence is admissible at trial

Question 9

 Hudson v. Michigan

Answer 9

• The exclusionary rule does not apply to knock and announce violations
• The court expands the attenuation doctrine: Attenuation also occurs when the interest protected by the constitutional guarantee that has been violated would not be served by suppression of the evidence obtained

Question 10

How to trigger good faith exception

Answer 10

 The good faith exception applies to officers who act in good faith on either a facially valid warrant later determined to be invalid, or an existing law later declared unconstitutional

Question 11

Good faith exception does not apply when (RDOAI):

Answer 11

o No reasonable officer would rely on the affidavit underlying the warrant
o The warrant is defecting on its face
o The warrant was obtained by fraud
o The magistrate has wholly abandoned his judicial role; or
o The warrant was improperly executed

Question 12

3 exceptions to the exclusionary rule

Answer 12

(1) Independant source/Inevitable discovery
(2) Attenuation
(3) Good faith exception

Question 13

How to trigger the exclusionary rule

Answer 13

Isolated negligence by law enforcement will not necessarily trigger the exclusionary rule. To trigger the rule, police conduct must be sufficiently deliberate such that exclusion can meaningfully deter it. The exclusionary rule serves to deter deliberate, reckless, or grossly negligent conduct or recurring or systematic negligence