The Exclusionary Rule Flashcards
Exclusionary Rule
The exclusionary rule is a legal principle that prohibits the use of evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures in criminal trials. The rule applies to evidence obtained through unlawful searches, seizures, or other law enforcement actions that violate an individual’s constitutional rights.
US v. Leon—Good Faith Exception
Is there a “good faith” exception to the exclusionary rule? Yes, there is such an exception. The justices held that evidence seized on the basis of a mistakenly issued search warrant could be introduced at trial. The exclusionary rule, argued the majority, is not a right but a remedy justified by its ability to deter illegal police conduct. In Leon, the costs of the exclusionary rule outweighed the benefits. The exclusionary rule is costly to society: Guilty defendants go unpunished and people lose respect for the law. The benefits of the exclusionary rule are uncertain: The rule cannot deter police in a case like Leon, where they act in good faith on a warrant issued by a judge.
Exceptions to the Good Faith Exception
If the magistrate was misled by information in an affidavit that the affiant knew was false or would have known was false except for his reckless disregard of the truth.
If an affidavit supporting a warrant is so deficient that no reasonable officer could believe it establishes probable cause, then an officer cannot claim to have acted in good faith reliance on the warrant.
The exception will not apply in cases where the issuing magistrate wholly abandoned his judicial role in the manner condemned—issuing a warrant and then participating in the search; failing to read the warrant application and just signing off
Illinois v. Krull—Reasonable Reliance
Officers searched Krull’s premises without a warrant but under the authority of the state—the statue was found unconstitutional after the search, and the government argued that while the search was illegal the error was on the legislature and not the officer; The presence of an intermediary upon whom the officer could reasonably rely meant that the officer could not be deterred by the exclusionary rule; The legislature made the mistake, however, the legislature wouldn’t be deterred from the exclusionary rule to prevent passing unconstitutional laws
Arizona v. Evans—Court Clerical Personnel
The officer therefore arrested Evans and conducted a search incident to arrest, which uncovered marijuana in Evan’s possession; However, unbeknownst to the officer, the arrest warrant had been quashed, but not removed from the computer records; The exclusionary rule was implemented to deter police misconduct, not the misconduct of court employees. Regardless, applying the exclusionary rule in cases of a court employee’s clerical error would not deter either police misconduct or future clerical errors by court employees.
Herring v. US
A police investigator asked the Coffee County’s warrant clerk if there were any warrants out for Herring’s (defendant) arrest. When none were found, the investigator asked the clerk to check with the clerk in Dale County, who reported that there was one active arrest warrant. The warrant had actually been quashed but the record was not revised by error of another officer
Does the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule stand even in the case of the error of another officer; The error that led to the discovery of evidence was not directly related to the arrest or to the actions of the arresting officers; the error was not so significant as to taint all of the evidence obtained, and that the evidence should be evaluated based on its own merits. The good faith exception doe not apply if the police department grossly or negligently fails to conducted reasonably
Rakas v. Illinois
The police pulled over a car that fit the description of a car used in a robbery. The police ordered the four occupants out of the car. Upon searching the vehicle, the police found a box of rifle shells in the glove compartment and a sawed-off rifle under the front passenger seat; Rakas moved to have the rifle and shells suppressed at trial, but the trial court denied the motion to suppress; Does a passenger in a car belonging to someone else have a legitimate expectation of privacy in the car or in items found in the car that do not belong to him? In contrast, Rakas was simply a casual visitor in the car who had no authority to exercise dominion or control of the car, and the items seized did not belong to him. Moreover, as a mere passenger, Rakas had no legitimate expectation of privacy in the glove compartment or under-seat area of someone else’s car. Accordingly, he does not have the right to question the constitutionality of the search and seizure.
Attenuation Exception
Temporal proximity: The amount of time between the unconstitutional act and the discovery of the evidence; precedents have declined to find that this factor favors attenuation unless “substantial time” elapses between an unlawful act and when the evidence is obtained
Intervening circumstances: Events or circumstances that occur between the unconstitutional act and the discovery of the evidence, which may weaken the causal connection.
Purpose and flagrancy of the official misconduct: The egregiousness of the police misconduct and whether it was deliberate or merely negligent.
Brown v. Illinois—Attenuation & Miranda
Merely providing Miranda warnings, which are meant to protect a suspect’s Fifth Amendment rights, is not enough to automatically attenuate the taint of an unconstitutional arrest; The Court held that Miranda warnings are not sufficient to remove the taint of an illegal arrest from statements made in custody. The Court held that the Fourth and Fifth Amendment were meant to work together, so that even if a statement is found to be voluntary as required by the Fifth Amendment, it could still be the result of an illegal search under the Fourth Amendment and therefore inadmissible. Because Brown’s arrest was illegal and the statements clearly stemmed from that arrest, the Court held that the statements were inadmissible.
Hudson v. Michigan—Attenuation Application
No. In a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled that evidence need not be excluded when police violate the “knock-and-announce” rule; The opinion by Justice Scalia reaffirmed the validity of both the knock-and-announce rule and the “exclusionary rule” for evidence obtained by police in most cases of Fourth Amendment violation. Attenuation occurs when the causal connection is remote; Attenuation occurs if the interest protected that has been violated would not be served by suppression of the evidence. The difference benefits do not outweigh the social costs—Deterrence of the knock and announce violations is not worth a lot, massive deterrence is not necessary under the exclusionary rule. The exclusionary rule hasn’t been applied except where the deterrence benefits outweigh the social costs
Utah v. Strieff—Outstanding Warrants Breaking Chain of Causation
The evidence Fackrell seized incident to Strieff’s arrest is admissible; Fackrell’s discovery of a valid, pre-existing, and untainted arrest warrant attenuated the connection between the unconstitutional investigatory stop and the evidence seized incident to a lawful arrest. Temporal proximity not sufficiently attenuated after mere minutes; Intervening circumstances are stronger given the discovery of the unrelated warrant, purpose and flagrancy of the illegal misconduct—merely negligence on the part of the officer; good-faith mistake—Evidence is admissible when the connection between the unconstitutional police conduct and the evidence is remote or has been interrupted by some intervening circumstance so that the protected interest has been violated would not be served by the suppression of the evidence obtained
Murray v. US—Independent Source Doctrine
The Court held that evidence that would be excluded under the Fourth Amendment is admissible if it comes from an independent source. If the police obtained information unlawfully but the evidence in question comes from an untainted source, it is still admissible. Because the officers in this case obtained a lawful warrant without relying on the information they obtained illegally, the evidence seized in the warranted entry can be considered to have come from an independent source and therefore not subject to exclusion.
Independent Source Doctrine: 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 absent any error or violation; Constitutional basis: ISD applies also to evidence initially discovered during, or as a consequence of, an unlawful search, but later obtained independently from activities untainted by the initial illegality; Public Policy argument: 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 absent any error or violation.” A warrant fits the ISD when the evidence obtained is based on probable cause not connected to the illegal search, but instead an independent source
Nix v. Williams—Inevitable Discovery Doctrine
The “inevitable discovery” exception is a legal principle that allows for the admission of evidence that would have been discovered eventually, even if it was initially obtained through an unlawful search or seizure. This exception is based on the idea that excluding such evidence would not serve the purpose of the exclusionary rule, which is to deter police misconduct.
The inevitable discovery exception is applicable when the following conditions are met:
There is a lawful, independent investigation that is already in progress, separate from the tainted source.
This independent investigation would have inevitably led to the discovery of the evidence in question.
The prosecution can show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the evidence would have been discovered through the independent investigation, regardless of the initial unlawful search or seizure.
