Exlcusionary Rule - Cases Flashcards
Mapp v. Ohio (1961)
Issue, Holding
Issue:
- Whether evidence unlawfully seized by law enforcement is still admissible for state crimes in state court
Holding:
- Fourth Amendment requires exclusion of evidence seized unlawfully
Byrd v. United States (2018)
Holding, Issue
Issue:
- Whether Byrd, claiming a constitutional violation, has had his own Fourth Amendment rights infringed by the search and seizure which he seeks to challenge
- In other words, does Byrd have standing to claim a 4th Amendment right which invokes the exclusionary rule
Holding:
Yes, because Byrd had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the car his 4th Amendments rights were violated and he may claim the constitutional violation
Wong Sun v. United States (1963)
- Significant for derivative/fruit of the poisonous tree
- But for – but for the constitutional violation, would the evidence have
been discovered - Proximate cause – “but for” cause may be too attenuated
Wong Sun v. United States (1963)
- Was secondary evidence discovered by exploitation of the illegality?
Exclude
Wong Sun v. United States (1963)
- Was secondary evidence obtained by means sufficiently removed from illegality?
- Has the “poison” of the constitutional violation been purged?
- Taint of unlawful arrest has dissipated
- Sufficiently attenuated, admit
Murray v. United States (1988)
Issue, Holding
Issue:
- Whether evidence obtained from an
independent source, in conjunction with an
unlawful search, is admissible
Holding:
- Independent source doctrine applies to both evidence obtained for the first time during independent lawful search, and also to evidence initially discovered during, or as
consequence of unlawful search.
Murray v. United States (1988)
Independent souces
Allows admission of evidence that has been discovered by means wholly independent of any constitutional violation
Murray v. United States (1988)
Independent souces
- Ultimate Question
whether the search pursuant to warrant was in fact a genuinely independent source of the information and tangible evidence.
Murray v. United States (1988)
Independent souces
- Rationale
“when the challenged evidence has an independent source, exclusion of such evidence would put the police in a worse
position than they would have been in absent any error or violation.”
Murray v. United States (1988)
Independent souces
- Limitations
If basis for warrant for warrant was what they saw during the illegal search or what was presented to the magistrate
Nix v. Williams (1984)
Holding, Issue
Issue:
- Whether evidence obtained unlawfully is still admissible if its discovery under lawful means was inevitable
Holding:
- If the prosecution can establish by a
preponderance of the evidence that the
information ultimately or inevitably would
have been discovered by lawful means, then
it is admissible, despite the constitutional
violation
- Good or bad faith doesn’t matter
Utah v. Strieff (2016)
Issue, Holding
Issue:
- Whether the attenuation doctrine applied in this case, thereby precluding the application of the exclusionary rule to suppress evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment
Holding:
- In this case, the discovery of the evidence
was too attenuated from the Fourth
Amendment violation and therefore the
exclusionary rule was inapplicable
Utah v. Strieff (2016)
- Attenuation Doctrine
Unlawfully obtained evidence may still be
admitted if the connection between the evidence and constitutional violation becomes too attenuated. How do we know what’s too attenuated?
Utah v. Strieff (2016)
- Brown Factors
3 points
- Look to the temporal proximity between the unconstitutional conduct and the discovery of evidence – the more time in between, the more likely it is to be too attenuated;
- Look whether there were intervening circumstances – if so (and unforeseeable) more likely to be too attenuated (ex. consent to search, speaking after Miranda warnings, etc.)
- Look to the purpose and flagrancy of the official misconduct – the less flagrant, the more likely to be too attenuated
Utah v. Strieff (2016)
- So was the constitutional violation and discovery of evidence too attenuated to suppress evidence under the exclusionary rule?
3 points
- Yeah, violation/discovery close in
proximity – suggests not too
attenuated - There was an intervening
circumstances – the discovery of a
valid arrest warrant. Discovered in
between the violation and the
discovery of the evidence - Police misconduct not flagrant –
the product of some good-faith
beliefs
It’s attenuated!
U.S. v. Leon (1984)
Issue, Holding
Issue:
Whether the exclusionary rule applies to
evidence obtained under a warrant that’s
later found to be invalid
Holding:
- Creation of the Good Faith Exception
- Exclusion is on a base-by cases basis – only when exclusion serves deterrence
- When law enforcement acts on good
faith, meaning they have an objectively
reasonable belief that the warrant was
valid, evidence will not be excluded, even
if warrant was later found to be invalid
U.S. v. Leon (1984)
Why ct found that exclusion is not a appropriate remedy
- Remedial objective is to deter police misconduct
- Exclusion in this situation would not deter police conduct
- No emperical evidence
- Misconduct here is not LE, but the magistrate
US v. Leon (1984)
Significance
3
- Exclusionary Rule is not absolute (or per se)
- Instead, applied on a case-by-case basis – asking, “will excluding this evidence deter similar police misconduct”
- Creates good faith exception – when law enforcement has an objectively reasonable belief that the warrant was valid, evidence will not be excluded, even if warrant was later found to be invalid
US v. Leon (1984)
Law enforcement belief that warrant was valid must be
objectively reasonable
what does that mean?
“Our good faith inquiry is confined to the objectively ascertainable question whether a reasonably well-trained officer would have known that the search was illegal despite the magistrate’s authorization”
US v. Leon (1984)
2 noted exceptions
- Law enforcement lies or misleads to get warrant
- Magistrate abandoned role
Hudson v. Michigan (2006)
Issue, Holding
Issue:
- Whether the exclusionary rule applies to knock-
and-announce violations
Holding:
- Exclusionary rule only applicable where its
remedial measures are thought most
efficaciously served – that is, where its
deterrence benefits outweigh its substantial
social costs
- Social costs of excluding this evidence
outweighs deterrence; exclusionary rule doesn’t
apply to knock-and-announce violations
US v. Leon
Good faith/bad faith depends on
what the officer knew
Herring v. United States (2009)
Issue, Holding
Issue:
- Whether evidence obtained as a result of a
negligent bookkeeping error should be
excluded
Holding:
- No, law enforcement had an objectively
reasonable belief that there was a valid arrest
warrant and relied upon that to obtain
evidence
- Significant: In looking at deterrent effect, look
at extent of police misconduct
