Exclusion of evidence Flashcards
six objections to the exclusionary rule
(1) judicially crafted not constitutionally required
(2) the guilty go free – paraphrasing Justice Cardozo, the criminal should not go free because the constable has blundered
(3) The process becomes less focused on seeking the
truth
(4) Law enforcement becomes more difficult more costly (thus more acts of criminality engaged in and not prevented by law enforcement)
(5) 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
(6) The exclusionary rule is unnecessary – there are other adequate alternatives
five purposes of the exclusionary rule
(1) deters police misconduct;
(2) judicial integrity—concern that the courts became tainted if persons are convicted with illegally obtained evidence
(3) Excluding unreliable evidence that could lead to convicting innocent persons
(4) 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
(5) The constitutional rights of the individual defendant are not otherwise adequately being honored
police negligence and exclusion - what are we gonna do when the police make a negligent mistake
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
police reasonable reliance on binding precedent
Evidence obtained during a search conducted in reasonable reliance on binding precedent is not subject to the exclusionary rule
when a person may move to suppress evidence from a search
A person may raise a 4th amendment challenge seeking suppression of the evidence if he or she has had his or her own Fourth Amendment right infringed by the search and seizure which he seeks to challenge
when guests in another’s home may claim Fourth Amendment rights - general overview plus four factors
An overnight guest in a home may claim the protection of the Fourth Amendmnet, but one who is merely present with the consent of the householder for a short period of time may not
Social guest home search “standing” – factors commonly considered to determine if the person is a social guest
(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
When a passenger has been seized
So long as the passenger of a vehicle reasonably would not feel free to leave and submits to a traffic stop, he or she has been seized
Independent Source exception to the exclusionary rule
The ultimate question . . . is 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 have been 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 to the exclusionary rule
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
Inadequate Causal Connection exception to the exclusionary rule (attenuation of the taint)
Whether, granting the establishing of the primary illegality, the evidence to which . . . objection is made has been come at by exploitation of that illegality or instead by means sufficiently distinguishable to be purged of the primary taint
The burden is upon the state to demonstrate sufficient attenuation of the taint
Factors in assessing attenuation of the taint
(1) temporal proximity
(2) the presence of intervening circumstances
(3) the purpose and flagrancy of the official misconduct
Good Faith exception to the exclusionary rule
For the Leon good faith exception to apply, the officer’s reliance on the magistrate’s probable cause determination in issuing the warrant and on the technical sufficiency of the warrant must be objectively reasonable
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,
(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
all of the exceptions to the exclusion rule (there are seven of them)
(1) Independent Source
(2) Inevitable Discovery
(3) Inadequate Causal Connection – Attenuation of the Taint
(4) Good Faith Exception
(5) Knock and Announce Rule Violations
(6) Police negligence (Herring)
(7) Acting in Accordance with Established Precedent (exception-case in which precedent is overturned) (Davis)
