Exclusion Exception for Attenuation

Question 1

Attenuation Rule

Answer 1

The fruits of a 4th amendment violation are admissible if the fruits are attenuated enough from the violation by time, intervening circumstances, Miranda warnings.

Question 2

Attenuation Test

Answer 2

This is a totality of the circumstances test from Brown v. Illinois.

Relevant factors of attenuated circumstance include:
1. Temporal proximity of the arrest and the confession,
2. the presence of intervening circumstances, and,
3. particularly, the purpose and flagrancy of the official misconduct
4. Miranda warnings

Question 3

Brown v. Illinois (SCOTUS 1975)

Answer 3

The defendant in this case was arrested without probable cause and interrogated. He was mirandized and confessed to a murder. Here, the court held that the Miranda warnings here did not attenuate the confession from the 4th amendment violation (arresting him w/o probable cause)

Question 4

Wong Sun Case

Answer 4

Here, the police illegally searched a person’s buisness and he was arrested. He made a statement to the police, which led them to another person, who led them to the defendant.

Here, the court ruled that there were intervening factors that removed the taint of the illegal search.

Question 5

Hudson v. Michigan (SCOTUS 2006)

Answer 5

This case held that failure to knock and announce did not allow exclusion of evidence because there was attenuation. Scalia held that the test here was:
1. Whether the causal connection is too remote or
2. if the interest protected by the constitutional guarantee would not be served by exclusion of the evidence.

Here, he found the interest of the guarantee would not be served by exclusion. There is too much deterrence.

Counter: why would officers ever bother to knock and announce now?

Question 6

Utah v. Strieff (SCOTUS 2016)

Answer 6

This case held that the attenuation doctrine applies when the officers make unconstitutional Terry stops. Here, the police stopped the defendant without reasonable suspicion, learned that he had a warrant out for his arrest, and a search incident to arrest revealed incriminating evidence.

Thomas ruled that there was attenuation.
1. Minutes between stop and arrest
2. The the arrest warrant was attenuating.
3. The cop was negligent, not flagrant

Sotomayor dissent–concern with fact that police will now stop everything to see if they have a warrant.