Exclusionary Rule & Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Flashcards
exclusionary rule, purpose and 7 general exceptions
• Definition: The Exclusionary Rule prohibits the prosecution from using in its case-in-chief evidence obtained in violation of the defendant’s Fourth, Fifth, or Sixth Amendment rights.
**purpose is to DISCOURAGE POLICE MISCONDUCT - let this point guide you
• Exceptions: The exclusionary rule does NOT apply:
o to grand jury proceedings (i.e., the grand jury may base its indictment on illegally seized evidence)
o in civil proceedings, including IRS civil proceedings and immigration hearings
o when the accused claims that the search violated an agency’s internal policies (e.g., the recording of a conversation between a taxpayer and an IRS agent in contravention of IRS regulations)
o when the accused claims that the search violated a state law (i.e., the exclusionary rule applies only when the search violates either the U.S. Constitution or a federal statute)
o to parole revocation proceedings
o where use of the illegally obtained evidence was harmless error (police must prove beyond a reasonable doubt)
o as a remedy for failure to “knock and announce”:
exclusionary rule - good faith exceptions (5); reason for them
• Good Faith Exceptions: The exclusionary rule does NOT apply:
o if the police relied in good faith on binding appellate precedent that is later overturned by a Supreme Court decision
o if the police relied in good faith on a statute or ordinance that is later declared unconstitutional
o if the police made a reasonable mistake in interpreting the law (e.g., police officer’s reasonable mistake that a vehicle must have two working brake lights—when only one was required—did not invalidate the stop and subsequent arrest)
o if the police relied in objective good faith on computer information containing clerical errors (e.g., an arrest warrant that had been withdrawn but remained on the computer system due to an error by court personnel)
o if the police relied in objective GOOD FAITH on a search warrant that is defective
• reason: the exclusionary rule serves the purpose of discouraging police misconduct! if there was a good faith mistake, there was technically no misconduct & no reason to exclude the evidence
exclusionary rule - impeachment exceptions (2)
• Impeachment Exceptions: Evidence excluded under the exclusionary rule may be used for impeachment purposes in the following situations:
o An otherwise voluntary confession that violates Miranda or the Sixth Amendment (and thus would not be admissible in the prosecution’s case-in-chief) may be used to impeach the defendant as a witness, BUT a truly involuntary confession may not.
o Evidence obtained in an illegal search may be used to impeach the credibility of the defendant as a witness (e.g., if he lies about possession of the evidence), but may not be used to impeach other witnesses.
fruit of the poisonous tree define
• Definition: an extension of the exclusionary rule – A court will exclude not only illegally seized items but also all evidence derived from exploiting illegally seized items. This doctrine expands the scope of the exclusionary rule.
fruit of the poisonous tree - 5 exceptions
• Exceptions: The evidence will not be excluded where the government can break the link between the unconstitutional act and the evidence, such as:
o the three “in”s:
> > > the police had an independent source for obtaining the evidence (e.g., court will not suppress evidence initially discovered during police officers’ illegal entry of private premises, where that evidence was rediscovered during later search pursuant to a valid warrant based on information totally unrelated to initial illegal entry)
> > > inevitable discovery (e.g., the police would have found the evidence because it was in a location they planned to search)
> > > intervening acts of free will on the part of defendant (e.g., defendant is illegally arrested, but then is released on his own recognizance; a couple of days later, the defendant returns voluntarily to police station and confesses)
o attenuation doctrine: intervening circumstances between the unconstitutional police act and discovery of the evidence (e.g., officer lacked reasonable suspicion to initially stop defendant, but officer’s discovery of valid pre-existing arrest warrant attenuated the connection between the unlawful stop and drug-related evidence seized from defendant during search incident to arrest and thus the evidence was admissible)
o live witness testimony: if an illegal search enables the police to locate a witness, the witness’ testimony will rarely be excluded as fruit of the poisonous tree.
»> ***if a confession obtained in violation of Miranda enables the police to locate physical evidence (e.g., a gun), the confession is INADMISSIBLE but the gun is probably ADMISSIBLE
fruit of the poisonous tree - confessions and the 5th/6th amendments
o Fifth and Sixth Amendments: Confessions obtained in violation the Fifth or Sixth Amendment are inadmissible as evidence of guilt.
»> but VOLUNTARY confessions may be used for impeachment purposes only
fruit of the poisonous tree - confessions and the 4th amendment
o Fourth Amendment: Confessions resulting from an illegal arrest are inadmissible, unless there is a weak link between the illegal police conduct and the challenged evidence.
Example: Police had probable cause to arrest D, but arrested him in his home without an arrest warrant. After receiving Miranda warnings, D confessed at home. After receiving another round of Miranda warnings, D confessed again at the police station. Are the confessions admissible?
»> The home confession is inadmissible as fruit of the illegal arrest, but the confession at the station is admissible. Because the police had probable cause to arrest D, they gained nothing by the unconstitutional arrest—the police could have arrested D the moment he stepped outside his house and then brought him to the police station for a confession.
Example: D was arrested without probable cause and brought to the police station. D received Miranda warnings. After two hours at the station, D confessed. Is the confession admissible?
»> The confession is inadmissible as fruit of the illegal arrest. If D had not been arrested unconstitutionally, he would not have been in custody and would not have confessed.
fruit of the poisonous tree - successive confessions
o Successive Confessions: If a defendant (subject to custodial interrogation) confesses without receiving Miranda warnings and then confesses again after receiving Miranda warnings, is the second confession tainted by the earlier unlawful confession?
If the “question first, warn later” nature of the questioning was a calculated technique to undermine Miranda, the second confession is probably inadmissible.
If the “question first, warn later” nature of the questioning was unplanned and inadvertent, the second confession is probably admissible.
failure to knock & announce (justification)
Rule: in order to justify a ‘no-knock’ entry, the police must have a reasonable suspicion (less than probable cause required) that knocking and announcing their presence, under the particular circumstances, would be:
»> dangerous,
»> futile, OR
»> that it would inhibit the effective investigation of the crime by, for example, allowing the destruction of evidence
- (this showing is not high, but the police should be required to make it whenever the reasonableness of a no-knock entry is challenged)
- ABSENT AN EMERGENCY, warrantless entry into a residence for the purpose of making a felony arrest is a fourth amendment violation
• **this rule does not apply when assessing the reasonableness of waiting time after the officers did, in fact, knock – unless you are saying “I only waited 5 seconds cause I heard a commotion and thought they were destroying evidence”
»> rule: the facts known to the police are what count in judging reasonable waiting time before entering after a knock and announce
»> rule: 15-20 seconds is typically fair for small apartments – likely need a longer time for larger residences
• **police will still be encouraged to conform or face a 1983 civil suit
