The Exclusionary Rule Flashcards
Mapp v. Ohio (1961)
We hold that ALL EVIDENCE OBTAINED BY SEARCHES AND SEIZURES IN VIOLATION OF THE CONSTIS, by that same authority, INADMISSIBLE IN A STATE COURT.”
Today, SCOTUS has said that exclusionary rule exists solely DETER violations of the 4A - Deterrence is the DOMINANT argument for the exclusionary rule.
Exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule
General Rule: unlawfully obtained evidence due to violation of 4a cannot be used at trial by the prosecution. [Mapp]
Exceptions and limitations:
- Good Faith
- Standing [who can complain about police conduct]
- Fruit of the Poisonous Tree and Attenuation [what flows from the illegal conduct; did illegality cause police to find the evidence claimant seeks to suppress]
- Independent Source Doctrine
- Impeachment
United States v. Leon (Good Faith Exception)
Confidential informant told police that 2 persons were selling large amounts of coke out of home. Other informant told police that Leon was a large meth importer and dealer out of his home. Officers applied for a search warrant to search Patsy & Armando’s residence & Leon’s residence/cars. A facially valid warrant was issued by a judge and searches that followed produced large quantities of drugs at Leon’s home, and small amounts of drugs at other home. Later found to be insufficient. Lower court held the officers acted in good faith w/r/t the warrant.
- Court says exclusionary rule is neither intended nor able to “cure the invasion of the Ds rights which he has already suffered” – EXCLUSIONARY RULE = as a JUDICIALLY CREATED REMEDY designed to safeguard 4th amend rights generally through its DETERRENT EFFECT rather than a personal constitutional right of the party aggrieved
Marginal or nonexistence benefits produced by suppressing evidence obtained in objectively reasonable reliance on a subsequently invalid search warrant cannot justify the substantial costs of exclusion.
- Exclusion is to deter police misconduct, not punish errors of judges/magistrates
- Exclusion here unlikely to have a deterrent effect
: An officer’s objectively reasonable reliance on a magistrate’s probable cause determination and technical sufficiency of the warrant prior to obtaining evidence upon execution of the warrant precludes application of the exclusionary rule. Leon; Arizona v Evans (1995) (extending Leon to reliance on administrative court errors, such as existence of outstanding warrant).
No police illegality, thus NOTHING to deter.
Can suppress when reliance is objectively unreasonable:
- magistrate or judge issuing warrant was misled by info in an affidavit
o that the affiant knew was false [Officer knowledge that info in warrant app is false, or reckless disregard of truth prevents knowledge that info is false]
o or would have known was false except for his reckless disregard of the truth
- magistrate wholly abandoned his judicial role – and no well trained officer should rely on the warrant
- no objective good faith when relying on warrant based on affidavit so lacking in indicia of PC as to render official belief in its existence entirely unreasonable
- facially deficient warrant – failing to particularize the place to be searched or the things to be seized – that the executing officers cannot reasonably presume it to be valid
o Lack of particularity in things/persons to be searched or seized
o Opened-ended warrant. Lo-Ji Sales, Inc v. New York (1979)
- Officer reliance on “clearly unconstitutional” statute.
Herring v. United States (2009)
– bureaucratic errors led to Herring’s arrest [notice that there was an active arrest warrant for Herring’s failure to appear on a felony charge]. When police arrested him, in search incident to arrest, they found methamphetamine in his pocket and pistol in the car.
: when police mistakes are result of negligence such as here, rather than a systemic error or reckless disregard for constitutional requirements, any marginal deterrence does not pay its way.
- No evidence that error in system is routine or widespread to make reliance reckless
- To trigger rule, police conduct must be:
o sufficiently deliberate that exclusion can meaningfully deter it, and
o sufficiently culpable that such deterrence is worth the price paid by the justice system
extended the good-faith exception into new territory by making clear that Evans applies wh an isolated negligent data entry was made by the court clerk or by someone within the police dept
- To trigger the exclusionary rule police conduct must be SUFFICIENTLY deliberate that exclusion can meaningfully deter it and sufficiently capable that such deterrence is WORTH THE PRICE PAID BY THE JUSTICE SYSTEM - it serves to DETER DELIBERATE, RECKLESS OR GROSSLY NEGLIGENT CONDUCT or in some circumstances recurring or systemic negligence
Errors in this case did NOT rise to that level.
Davis v. United States (Good Faith)
officers conducting a routine traffic stock that resulted in arrest of Stella Owens (DWI) and passenger Willie Davis (gave false name to police). Police handcuffed both, placed in separate patrol cars, and searched Owen’s car passenger compartment and found a revolver in Davis’s pocket. At the time, Belton was controlling, but now Gant has been decided.
: because suppression would do nothing to deter police misconduct in these circumstances, and because it would come at a high cost to both the truth and the public safety, we hold that searches conducted in objectively reasonable reliance on binding appellate precedent (good faith exception) are not subject to exclusionary rule. We do not want to apply retroactively, would open floodgates. Because there is no police culpability, there is nothing to deter.
Summarizing Good Faith Exceptions
- The exclusionary rule does NOT apply where an officer objectively and reasonably relies on binding precedent, an issued warrant that is facially valid but later determined to be faulty or not based on PC, or an isolated, negligent mistake by a non-police actor
- If the officer’s reliance was objectively reasonable, the good faith exception applies
o Examples of objectively reasonable reliance include:
Reliance on a magistrate’s PC determination and the technical sufficiency of the warrant. Leon
* Exceptions: knowledge of falsity of info or recklessness as to falsity of info in the affidavit; severe lack of indicia supporting PC; obvious technical insufficiency (particularity/open ended)*
Reliance on an isolated administrative court or police error that erroneously authorizes a search or an arrest; Evans; Herring
* Exception: reckless reliance on a system where errors are routine* Herring
Reliance on existing case law permitting the police activity in question, including warrantless activity relating to searches incident to arrest. Davis
Reliance on leg statues are not “clearly unconstitutional.” Krull
Minnesota v. Carter (Standing Case)
– police received a tip from an informant that he walked by the window of a ground floor apt and had seen people putting white powder into bags. Officer responded and looked through a gap in the closed blinds and observed the bagging operation. left to prep affs. for search warrant. Thompson was lessee and other two men were just visiting.
any resulting search did not violate their rights. Not true guests, purely commercial nature of transaction: relatively short period of time, lack of previous relationship, more like permission than a guest.
Unlike in Minnesota v. Olson, Carter was not an overnight guest w/ a preexisting relationship w/ owner, was only in apt for a brief time, solely for commercial purposes, and had no prior relationship w/ owner
Standing and Privacy Interests: Summary
Katz-style privacy analysis drives the issue of standing.
- Mere ownership is insufficient to establish standing. Rawlings v. Kentucky (1980). [owned drugs in associate’s searched handbag, no 4a interest in the bag]
- Individuals rarely have privacy interests in documents held by a third party. United States v. Payner (1980) (documents held in banker’s briefcase).
- A passenger in a vehicle who is not the owner does not automatically have standing to challenge the search of a glove compartment. Rakas v. Illinois (1978).
- Driver of rental vehicle, even if not owner, has standing to challenge search of the vehicle. Byrd v. United States (2018).
- For a residence, mere PERMISSION for the suspect to be on the premises is not enough; usage of the residence as a DWELLING place is crucial to the analysis.
o An overnight guest does have privacy interests in the place where the guest is staying even if no ownership interest. Minnesota v. Olson (1990).
Factors to consider for whether a privacy interest exists:
* Nature and purpose of the stay;
* Duration of visit;
* Relationship between host and guest
Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine
Basic Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine
- Verbal or tangible evidence “which derives so immediately from an unlawful entry and an unauthorized arrest is the fruit of official illegality.”
- It may NOT be used in court or by police unless knowledge of that evidence is gained from an independent source or the connection btwn the unlawful conduct and discovery was “so attenuated as to dissipate the taint.”
Attenuation basically equals causation.
o But for causation: was the verbal or physical evidence obtained due to an illegal search or arrest?
If it was obtained thru an independent source, then it is not the fruits of the illegal search
If it would have been inevitably discovered, then it is not the fruits of the illegal search
o Proximate Cause: was the chain connecting the unlawful police activity and discovery of the evidence so long or complicated (attenuated) that holding the unlawful behavior responsible for the discovery would not further the deterrence basis of the exclusionary rule
With respect to testimony
Basic FOTP Doctrine
- Brown attenuation factors:
- (1) temporal proximity b/w the unconstitutional conduct and the discovery of evidence; (precedent declines to find this factor favors attenuation unless “substantial time elapses b/w the unlawful act and when the evidence is obtained)
- (2) presence of intervening circumstances; (Segura – existence of a valid warrant favors finding of sufficient attenuation + Streiff – again valid warrant favors attenuation, at least absent some especially flagrant unconstitutional conduct; mere negligence won’t push towards suppress)
- (3) flagrancy of the unconstitutional conduct. (i.e., culpability… reckless? grossly negligent? remember that ordinary negligence usually doesn’t favor exclusion as a deterrence unless it’s somehow recurring or systemic)
Wong Sun v. US (FOPT)
the exclusionary rule also excludes intangible evidence like testimony or knowledge acquired during an unlawful search; beyond that, it excludes derivative evidence (both tangible and testimonial) that is the product of primary evidence, or that is otherwise acquired as an indirect result of an unlawful search (until/unless the connection b/w the unlawful search and the discovery of evidence is “so attenuated as to dissipate the taint” – Nardone).
- (1) Statements made by Toy at time of arrest = tainted fruit must be excluded b/c they were made way too close to the time of his UNLAWFUL ARREST → “verbal evidence which derives so immediately from an unlawful entry and an unauthorized arrest as the officers’ action in the present case is no less the “fruit” of official illegality than the more common tangible fruits of the unwarranted intrusion” made these statements right as he was handcuffed - unreasonable to infer that his response was sufficiently an act of free will to purge primary taint of the unlawful invasion
- (2) Heroin surrendered by Yee = tainted fruit b/c they were obtained by the exploitation of the illegal arrest and hence may NOT be used as evidence
- (4) Wong Sun’s statements = NOT tainted fruit while his arrest was unlawful b/c no probable cause - his unsigned confessions were NOT THE FRUIT OF THAT ARREST and therefore are admissible evidence - he returned voluntarily days later to make the statement and therefore “THE CONNECTION BETWEEN THE ARREST AND THE STATEMENT HAD BECOME SO ATTENUATED AS TO DISSIPATE THE TAINT”
- Voluntary action allows for those contents of the statement to fall into an ATTENUATION exception
- When evidence is obtained bc of an illegal search, it must be suppressed unless the taint of the illegal search has somehow dissipated
Utah v. Strieff
police received anon tip of narcotics activity, investigated/surveillance, noticed short visits. He saw Strieff exit house and walk to nearby store, he was detained and asked what he was doing at the house, he was informed there was an outstanding warrant for traffic violation, arrested, search incident to arrest revealed baggie of methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia.
evidence the officer seized during the search incident to arrest is admissible bc the officer’s discovery of the arrest warrant attenuated the connection btwn the unlawful stop and the evidence seized incident to arrest.
*unlawful detention that precedes discovery of valid arrest warrant does not preclude admissibility of evidence obtained incident to arrest
- The attenuation doctrine does not apply hence, evidence is ADMISSIBLE - b/c officer’s discovery of arrest warrant attenuated, connection between unlawful stop and evidence seized incident to arrest!
- 3 factors:
- (1) the “Temporal proximity” btw the unconst conduct and discovery of evidence - determine how closely the discovery of evidence followed the unconst search
- (2) the “presence of intervening circumstances”
- (3) “particularly significant” to examine “the purpose and flagrancy of the official misconduct”
- In evaluating these factors - assume w/out deciding that officer lacked reasonable suspicion to initially stop Strieff
3 Factors in this case:
1) → temporal proximity favors SUPPRESSION of evidence - officer found drugs only minutes after illegal stop - such a short time counsels in favor of suppression
- (2) → intervening circumstances strongly favors ADMISSION - evidence of a valid warrant favors finding connection between unlawful conduct and discovery of evidence sufficiently attenuated to dissipate taint - once officer authorized to arrest Strieff, clearly lawful to search him as an incident to arrest to protect his safety
- (3) → purpose and flagrancy strongly favor ADMISSION - officer here was at most simply negligent in conducting illegal stop - made good faith mistakes - these errors in judgment hardly rise to a purposeful or flagrant violation of Streiff’s 4th amend rights
- ALSO - no indication that this unlawful stop was part of any systemic or recurrent police misconduct - all evidence suggests that stop was an ISOLATED instance of negligence that occurred in connection w/ a BONA FIDE investigation of a suspected drug house
- Therefore, evidence = admissible
Murray v. US (Independant Source Doctrine)
: evidence subject to an initially illegal search but seized later during a lawful search is admissible if the second search is “genuinely independent” of the first -> is there a separate, sufficient, and non-poisonous route to the evidence:
* This is NOT the case if: (1) the police’s decision to seek the warrant was prompted by what they saw during the initial entry; or (2) the info obtained during that entry was presented to the magistrate and affected their decision to issue the warrant.
- Independent source doctrine = societal interest in deterring unlawful police conduct & public interest in having juries receive all probative evidence of crime are properly balanced by putting police in the same, not a worse, position that they would have been in if no police error or misconduct had occurred → 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
Nix v. Williams (Inevitable discovery doctrine)
- Nix v. Williams – “inevitable discovery” doctrine: conditional question; hypothetically asking whether the police WOULD HAVE discovered the evidence legally if it wasn’t discovered illegally.
– incriminating statements obtained in violation of Ds right to counsel had led police to victim’s body. Body had not been found thru indep source, so doctrine was inapplicable. But held that evidence concerning the body was nonetheless admissible bc a search had been underway which would have discovered he body, had it not been called off bc the discovery produced by the unlawfully obtained statements. Inevitable discovery doctrine – assumes validity of the indep source doctrine as applied to evidence initially acquired unlawfully
o Inevitable doctrine is an extrapolation of the independent source doctrine: since the tainted evidence would be admissible if in fact discovered through an indep source, it should be admissible if it inevitably would have been discovered.
