Exclusionary Rule

Question 0

Exclusionary Rule - Def

Answer 0

All evidence seized in violation of the 4th Amendment is excluded
Physical Evidence and statements as a result are inadmissible.
Mapp v Ohio

Question 1

4th Amendment

Answer 1

Protects people, papers, houses, and effects
Unreasonable search and seizure
Requires particularized warrants
supported by probable cause

Question 2

Standing to raise 4th Amendment Challenge

Answer 2

must be victim of unreasonable search or seizure.
Must have a legitimate expectation of privacy in the invaded place

Rakas v. Illinois

Question 3

Fruit of the Poisonous Tree

Answer 3

evidence, including oral statements, physical objects,
acquired directly or indirectly
from illegal search or seizure
must be excluded.

Wong Sun v. United States

Has limited applicability to Miranda Violations

Question 4

Admission of evidence previously tainted by the poisonous tree
Exceptions (3)

Answer 4

1. obtained from source independent of original illegality
   INDEPENDENT SOURCE EXCEPTION - no but-for connection
2. Evidence that would have been discovered regardless
   INEVITABLE DISCOVERY EXCEPTION - must prove it was inevitable
3. Attenuation - Where evidence with a but-for link to poison tree is so distant from initial illegality that taint from poison is purged from fruit.
   Looks at flagrancy of constitutional violation and distance between violation and evidence.

Question 5

Conditions where D may challenge and affidavit upon which a warrant was issued (3) and Standard by which it is measured.

Answer 5

1. Substantial showing affidavit contains false statements
2. Statements made intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly disregarding the truth; and
3. Magistrate would not have found probable cause but for the false statements.
   Failure to prove conditions by a preponderance of the evidence will uphold the warrant as having a substantial basis to issue in the first instance.

Question 6

Balancing Approach to the Exclusionary Rule

Answer 6

Benefit of Rule is to prevent future violations of law.

Rule precludes use of suppressed evidence in prosecutions case in chief, not for impeachment.

Question 7

Good Faith Exceptions to the exclusionary rule

Answer 7

1. Evidence obtained invalid warrant is admissible if

a reasonably well trained officer would believed warrant was valid.

a. police act in good faith reliance on a facially valid warrant.
b. police rely on valid statute
c. police rely on an officer of a court official rather than a police officer

Question 8

Where the exclusionary rule does NOT apply

Answer 8

1. Police mislead court obtaining a warrant
2. magistrate is not neutral or detached
3. warrant facially so facially invalid no reasonable police officer would believe warrant was valid

Question 9

Herring v. United States

Good faith exception and police negligence

Answer 9

Exclusionary rule does not apply to illegal arrests
resulting from isolated negligence
attenuated from the point of arrest.

May apply to evidence resulting from gross or systemic negligence on the part of the police.

Question 10

Limitations of the Exclusionary Rule

Answer 10

• Not applicable in Grand Jury proceedings
• evidence obtained in reasonable reliance on a valid search warrant issued by a detached, neutral magistrate not subject to rule.
• Evidence excluded by one sovereign may be used in a civil proceedings of another sovereign
• Confessions obtained without giving miranda, were coerced, used for impeachment
• not available in deportation and parole revocation hearings

Question 11

Procedural and Enforcement Considerations of the Exclusionary Rule

Answer 11

D has a right to a suppression hearing outside of the jury’s presence.
Judge determines as a matter of law admissibility of evidence
Govt has burden of establishing admissibility of evidence by prepond.
D’s testimony may not be used against him at suppression hearing on the substantive issue of guilt

Question 12

Admission of illegally obtained evidence and reversible error.

Answer 12

Such admission constitutes reversible error unless the error is harmless.

Government must prove that error did not contribute to a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt.

Question 13

4th Amendment applicability to government action.

Answer 13

4th Amendment applies to government action, not private conduct.

Evidence obtained by a private party acting on his own, not as an agent for the government, which the government seeks to later admit does not trigger 4th amendment protection or the exclusionary rule

Question 14

Arrest and Detention - General principles

Answer 14

warrants not required for arrests in public.
Non-emergency arrests in home requires a warrant
An unlawful arrest is no defense to a subsequent conviction of the crime charged.

Question 15

Custody

Answer 15

An individual is in custody when in the presence of law enforcement and not free to leave, thereby deprived of freedom of action in any significant way.

Question 16

Arrest - Defined

Answer 16

When a person is taken into custody for purpose of commencing a criminal action.

Brief detentions by police are permissible for purpose of questioning even without probable cause. Such a stop is not considered an arrest.

Question 17

Requirements necessary to claim the remedy of exclusion

Answer 17

1. Unreasonable search or seizure must trigger remedy of exclusion
2. D claiming remedy must have standing
3. Facts do not support applying an exception to the exclusionary rule.

Question 18

Standing Analysis

Answer 18

Whether the person who claims the protection has a legitimate expectation of privacy in the invaded place.

In order to have standing D must show that the unreasonable search or seizure interfered with HIS personal constitutional rights.

D may not vicariously assert the constitutional rights of someone else.

Question 19

To determine if D has standing to assert a constitutional claim in the case of a search or seizure

Answer 19

If D has OWNERSHIP or a POSSESSORY INTEREST in the place searched or the item seized.

Question 20

Owners of vehicles or persons in possession of a vehicle
vs
passengers in a vehicle

Answer 20

Owners and possessors of vehicles have standing to seek exclusion of evidence obtained as a result of an unreasonable search of the car.

Passengers do not have standing to complain about a search of the car however, they have been seized. If the passengers have been seized unreasonably this unlawful seizure is a poison tree which may require the exclusion of evidence the seizure leads to.

Question 21

Guests in a Residence and expectation of privacy

Answer 21

Guests in a residence have standing to challenge the search of the home.

Short term commercial visitors or non-overnight guests do not have standing to complain about a search of the hosts premises.

Question 22

Poison tree and Miranda

Answer 22

A violation of the Miranda warning and waiver does not result in an actual violation of the 5th Amendment. Therefore a Miranda Violation is not a poison tree. The only consequence of a Miranda violation is the inadmissibility of he confession in the prosecution case in chief.

Question 23

Exceptions to the Fruit of the Poison tree exclusion

Answer 23

Evidence with a BUT FOR link to a constitutional violation may still be admitted if the government can prove one of the following exceptions apply:

1. Independent Source
2. Inevitable Discovery
3. Attenuation
4. Impeachment
5. Good Faith Exception

Question 24

Independent Source Exception to Poison Tree

Answer 24

If the evidence is obtained from a lawful independent source it is admissible even if the police acted illegally to confirm the location of the evidence

Question 25

Inevitable Discovery exception to the Poison Tree

Answer 25

Evidence connected to a poison tree will still be admissible if police would have discovered the evidence from an independent source eventually.

It is essential for the government to prove that discovery was truly inevitable.

Look for gears of independent discovery that have been set in motion.

Question 26

Attenuation Exception to Poison Tree

Answer 26

Evidence with a but for link to a poison tree may be so distant from the initial illegality that the taint of the poison is purged from the fruit.

Exception turns on the flagrancy of the constitutional violation and the distance between the violation and the evidence.

Often asserted when Police obtain a voluntary confession following an unlawful arrest. If the confession immediately follows, exception will rarely apply.

Question 27

Factors Supporting Attenuation Exception

Answer 27

1. Different Location
2. Passage of time
3. Different officers
4. Valid Miranda Waiver

Question 28

Impeachment Limitation to the Exclusionary Rule

Answer 28

Rule does not apply to the use of tainted evidence to impeach D’s testimony.

A D cannot hide behind the rule to lie.

Question 29

Good Faith Exception to the Exclusionary Rule

Answer 29

The exclusive object of the rule is to deter police misconduct, when police act in good faith reliance on a warrant that subsequently is ruled invalid, evidence seized will not be subject to exclusion.

Limits include where a reasonable officer would know not to rely on the warrant or where police lie or mislead a magistrate in obtaining the warrant. A lie by one officer is imputed to all. And where a reasonable officer would know the magistrate is not neutral or detached.

Question 30

Interest of the party asserting 4th A exclusion

Standing

Answer 30

Person must have a ownership or possessory interest in the place searched or item seized.

Question 31

Overnight Guests in another’s home - standing to challenge search

Answer 31

has standing to complain about search of residence

Short term commercial visitors or non-overnight guests do not have standing to complain about search of residence

Question 32

Miranda Violation and Poison Tree

Answer 32

Miranda Violation excludes confession in prosecutions case in chief.

Does not invoke exclusionary rule

Question 33

Other Limitations on the Exclusionary Rule - List 2

Answer 33

Impeachment

Good Faith Exception

Question 34

Use of Tainted Evidence to impeach D’s Testimony

Answer 34

D cannot hide behind exclusionary rule to lie