Exclusionary Rule Flashcards
Cost of ER
Cannot use evidence—usually, no prosecution (b/c suppression is essential)
Purpose of ER
4TH, 5TH AND 6TH AM
& Intended to deter police misconduct
When ER does not apply
- ER does not apply at grand jury proceedings
- ER does not apply to 4th am. claims raised in federal habeas proceedings where the D had a full opportunity to litigate the issue in state court
- ER does not apply when officers violate agency standards, but not the constitution
- ER does not apply at probation revocation proceedings, or prelims, or bail proceedings, or at sentencing, or as a remedy for knock and announce rule
- ER does not apply in the school search context (school disciplinary proceedings)
- ER does not apply in civil deportation proceedings
Requirement of ER
State Action— state actor can be police or “civilian”
Standing
To raise ER, must have standing
o A person must have a privacy interest that is violated by a government official in order to raise a 4th am claim; no “vicarious” standing is available
• To determine whether a person has standing ask the Katz question—Did the person have a reasonable expectation of privacy in thing searched/seized?
Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine
• Evidence that is the direct result of the unconstitutional activity is excluded = tree
• So too is evidence that derives indirectly from the unconstitutional activity = fruit of the poisonous tree
*Applies equally to both
*Poisonous b/c gained unconstitutionally
FPT Exception: Independent source doctrine
When police obtain knowledge of evidence from a source that is independent of the violation, exclusionary rule does not apply
FPT Exception: Inevitable discovery rule
Police did violate rights but it was inevitable that they were going to find the evidence despite the constitutional violation
♣ Search party was nearing the place where the victim’s body was located (fruit) – EVENTUALLY WOULD
FPT Exception: Attenuation doctrine
♣ Has the chain of causation from the unlawful act by police been interrupted by some intervening circumstance, so as to remove the taint of the original illegality?
Factors: (1) temporal proximity; (2) intervening events; (3) flagrancy of the original violation of const rights (how serious? Technical violation?)
State v. Bray (2017)
o Search was illegal because warrant was invalid (affidavit)
o Was the search sufficiently attenuated from the invalid warrant? Events that happened between constitutional violation/original taint and events in D’s room? Attenuation and intervening free will from D were sufficient
Good Faith Exception
• Very Narrow Scenario; Only need to worry if WARRANT involved (which in many cases PO don’t have!)
SCENARIO: PO found incriminating evidence when conducting warrant –> D files motion to suppress the evidence & argues that the search unconst. –> judge agrees says invalid (usually b/c no probable cause) –> Prosecutors last hope is to say “Yes, you’re right but should apply good faith exception” b/c cops still executed the search with good faith
• Outcome (if judge agrees) ER would not apply b/c warrant did not deter police misconduct
o Then, D would argue that one of the exceptions to the good-faith exception apply
United States v. Leon (1984)
RULE: Reasonable reliance upon an otherwise invalid search warrant DOES NOT render evidence obtained during the search inadmissible –> Good faith reliance on invalid - but facially valid warrant
Exceptions to Good Faith Exceptions
• . Good faith Exception does not apply if—
o A PO misleads a magistrate with information PO knew was false, or police officer acted with reckless disregard of truth
o Magistrate abandoned judicial role
o Affidavit so lacking in factual support as to preclude reasonable reliance - i.e. merely states suspicions, beliefs or conclusions
o Warrant is facially defective (no good faith possible) - i.e. usually b/c doesn’t satisfy particularity
