Exclusionary Rule Flashcards
Weeks v. US (1914; Day)
Items seized unlawfully from police in violation of the Fourth Amendment may not be used as evidence against the defendant in a federal criminal prosecution. w/o the ER, the 4A would be reduced to a form or words; also, in allowing the evidence, the judge would be violating the 4A (JUDICIAL INTEGRITY)
Good Faith Exception
If officers had reasonable, good faith belief that they were acting in accordance with the law, (such as by relying on a search warrant that is later found to have been legally defective (US v. Leon)), the illegally obtained evidence is admissible. In Leon, the Court reasoned that when the police are acting in good faith, there is no improper police conduct to deter and therefore, no 4A interests are advanced by excluding the evidence (=the social costs of excluding the evidence ouweigh any 4A violation)
Illinois v. Krull (1987)
Good Faith Exception. Court applied Leon to a case in which police relied upon a statute authorizing warrantless searches of car dealerships and auto wrecking yards that was later invalidated.
Davis v. United States (2011)
Good Faith Exception. The Court applied Leon to a case in which a police officer conducted a warrantless search of a vehicle, relying upon then binding appellate precedent that was later overruled.
Herring v. US (2009)
Where police personnel act negligently, but not recklessly, leading an officer to reasonably believe an arrest warrant exists, the evidence obtained pursuant to that unlawful arrest remains admissible. … To trigger the exclusionary rule, police conduct must be sufficiently deliberate that exclusion can meaningfully deter it, and sufficiently culpable that such deterrence is worth the price paid by the justice system
Attenuation factors
1) temporal proximity between the unconstitutional conduct and discovery of the evidence (the closer the temporal proximity, the less likely the exception applies); 2) the presence of intervening circumstances; 3) most importantly, the purpose of flagrancy of the official misconduct
Hudson v. MI (2006)
violation of knock and announce rule does not require suppression of the evidence
Herring v. US (2009)
Where police personnel act negligently, but not recklessly, leading an officer to reasonably believe an arrest warrant exists, the evidence obtained pursuant to that unlawful arrest remains admissible
Utah v. Strieff (2016)
the outstanding arrest warrant for Strieff’s arrest was a critical intervening circumstance that was wholly independent of the illegal stop; the discovery of that warrant broke the causal chain between the unconstitutional stop and the discovery of evidence by compelling O. Fackrell to arrest Strieff
Inevitable Discovery
if the prosecution can prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the information ultimately or inevitably would have been discovered by lawful means–here the volunteers’ search–then the deterrence rationale has so little basis that the evidence should be received
Harris v. New York
statements made by a suspect who has not received the Miranda warnings may be admitted at trial for impeachment purposes
James v. IL
illegally obtained statements are not admissible to impeach the testimony of defense witnesses other than the defendant
