Exclusionary Rule & Fruit of the Poisonous Tree

Question 1

Weeks v. United States

Answer 1

SCOTUS ruled that when federal employees illegally search and seize from citizens, the evidence is excluded

Question 2

Wolf v. Colorado

Answer 2

Held that it is a due process violation to gather evidence through illegal search and seizures, but did not extend the Exclusionary Rule

Overturned by Mapp

Question 3

Mapp v. Ohio

Answer 3

Violation of the 14th amendment for state actors to gather evidence through unreasonable search and seizures, and therefore the evidence must be excluded from trial

Question 4

Who is subject to the exclusionary rules?

Answer 4

Federal and state actors (including state employees, people working as CIs, etc)

Question 5

Rational for the exclusionary rules

Answer 5

1) deter unconstitutional investigative practices
2) compel respect for the Constitution by government actors

Question 6

Fruit of the poisonous tree

Answer 6

Government cannot violate the Fourth Amendment and use the fruits of it to secure a conviction, use it indirectly, or support its case from that evidence

Question 7

Exceptions to the fruit of the poisonous tree

Answer 7

1) Independent Source
2) Inevitable Discovery

Question 8

Analysis of fruit of the poisonous tree

Answer 8

What is a poisonous tree? (what is unlawful?)

What type of tree? (what kind of violation?)

What is the fruit?

Does the fruit come from the exploitation of the poisonous tree?

Does the fruit have an independent source?

Was the defendant the victim of the poisonous tree?

Question 9

Exceptions to the fruit of the poisonous tree (taint via attenuation)

Answer 9

1) Lenth of time between initial illegality and seizure of the fruit

2) Flagrancy of the initial misconduct

3) Existence of an intervening cause of the seizure of the fruit

4) Presence of the act of free will by the defendant resulting in the seizure of the fruit

Question 10

Murray v. U.S.

Answer 10

If law enforcement has enough PC prior to an initial, illegal search, and does so, but does not use information from the illegal search for a warrant, that is permitted

Can search illegally, so long as there is enough PC before and there is no need to use it for the warrant

Question 11

Wong Sun v. United States

Answer 11

Fruit of the poisonous tree can be so attenuated that it is not subject to the exclusionary rule

Voluntary statements made days after the arrest are connected enough

Question 12

Utah v. Strieff (lack of flagrant conduct)

Answer 12

Accidental reading of a procedural arrest record is permitted when someone is illegally arrested

This was not a part of flagrant activity

Question 13

United States v. Leon (GFE)

Answer 13

Evidence obtained by a good faith, facially valid warrant is permitted even if the warrant is deemed invalid later

Question 14

Good faith exception forbiddance

Answer 14

1) magistrate is not detached and neutral party
2) affidavit did not have sufficient probable cause
3) warrant is so deficient its unreasonable

Question 15

Extension of good faith in Herring v. U.S.

Answer 15

Honest mistakes of law enforcement are permitted to be included in the good faith exception

Question 16

Herring v. U.S.

Answer 16

“Exclusion is a last resort”

Fourth amendment violation does not mean the exclusionary rule automatically applies

Mistakes of ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT are included in good faith exception

Question 17

Do no-knocks apply to the exclusionary rule?

Answer 17

No

Question 18

Hudson v. Michigan

Answer 18

Dismissed Mapp as legal dicta, no longer a “but for” analysis

Now: Attenuation occurs when (1) the causal connection is remote OR (2) when the interest is protected by the constitutional guarantee that has been violated would be served by the suppression of evidence

AKA: the exclusionary rule only applies when its deterrent benefits outweigh its substantial costs

Question 19

When does the exclusionary rule apply NOW?

Answer 19

when the deterrent benefits outweigh the substantial social costs

Question 20

Are authorities allowed to rely on accurate precedent, even if it gets overruled later

Answer 20

YES!

Question 21

Davis v. U.S.

Answer 21

A searched objectively conducted aligning with existing precedent is permitted, even if it has already been overruled