The Exclusionary Rule Flashcards
The Exclusionary Rule
a. Primary rationales for the exclusionary rule:
i. The rule is constitutionally _______
ii. It protects judicial ________
iii. It deters police _________.
The Exclusionary Rule
a. Primary rationales for the exclusionary rule:
i. The rule is constitutionally required
ii. It protects judicial integrity
iii. It deters police misconduct
The Exclusionary Rule
b. Mapp v. Ohio→
i. Since this case, the Court has limited the rule in 2 primary ways:
(1) narrowed the reach of the fruit-of-the-poisonous tree doctrine and
(2) the Court has created broad exceptions to the rule
The Exclusionary Rule
b. Mapp v. Ohio→Evidence seized in violation of a person’s 4th amendment rights can’t be used against the person in a criminal trial.
i. Since this case, the Court has limited the rule in 2 primary ways: (1) narrowed the reach of the fruit-of-the-poisonous tree doctrine and (2) the Court has created broad exceptions to the rule
Exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule
Inevitable Discovery→
Attenuation of the Taint →
Good Faith→
Exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule
Inevitable Discovery→the information would have ultimately or inevitably been discovered by lawful means
Independent Source
Attenuation of the Taint →whether the evidence to which objection is made has been the exploitation of that illegality or instead by means sufficiently distinguishable to be purged of the primary taint
Good Faith
Exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule:
Inevitable Discovery:
Nix v. Williams→(christian burial case)
Rule:
Exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule:
Inevitable Discovery:
Nix v. Williams→Applied the inevitable discovery exception in order to allow the body and all related evidence (including the body’s condition) to be admitted to evidence although it had been acquired after the polices’ “Christian burial” speech.
Rule→In order for the rule to apply, the prosecution must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the info would’ve ultimately or inevitably been discovered by lawful means.
Exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule: attenuation
ii. Brown v. Illinois→
- Relevant factors in an attenuation analysis:
(1) the temporal proximity of the arrest and the confession (2) presence of intervening circumstances
(3) purpose and flagrancy of the official misconduct.
iii. Kaupp v. Texas→
* *updates Brown
iv. Hudson v. Michigan→Violation of the “knock and enter” rule doesn’t require a suppression of evidence because of the attenuation of the taint.
1. Facts→
2. Rationale→
3. Rule→
Exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule: attenuation Exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule: attenuation
ii. Brown v. Illinois→a piece of evidence that can be linked causally to the constitutional violation may be admissible if the causal link is so attenuated that the deterrent purpose of the exclusionary rule wouldn’t be served by suppressing the evidence.
1. Relevant factors in an attenuation analysis: (1) the temporal proximity of the arrest and the confession (2) presence of intervening circumstances (3) purpose and flagrancy of the official misconduct.
iii. Kaupp v. Texas→When determining the taint has sufficiently dissipated the courts should look to: (1) whether Miranda warnings were given (2) the temporal proximity of the stop and the consents (3) presence of intervening circumstances (4) the purpose an flagrancy of the illegal stop
1. Facts→Kaupp had been bought in for questioning about a missing girl , but was then allowed to leave. Later the half-brother of the missing girl confessed and implicated Kaupp. Officers went to Kaupp’s home at 3 AM, woke him up, handcuffed him, put in the cop car, and took him the station in his boxers.
2. **updates Brown
iv. Hudson v. Michigan→Violation of the “knock and enter” rule doesn’t require a suppression of evidence because of the attenuation of the taint.
1. Facts→Police arrived at Δ’s home to execute a search warrant, they announced their presence, waited a few seconds, and then entered through the unlocked door.
2. Rationale→The “knock and announce” rule protects (1) life and limb (2) property and (3) privacy; it does not protect the government from seeing or taking evidence, so the exclusionary rule is inapplicable.
3. Rule→Attenuation occurs when (1) the causal connection is remote and (2) when the specific interests protected by the particular constitutional guarantee wouldn’t be served by suppression.
Exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule: attenuation
Kaupp v. Texas→
**updates Brown
Hudson v. Michigan→
Exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule: attenuation
iii. Kaupp v. Texas→When determining the taint has sufficiently dissipated the courts should look to: (1) whether Miranda warnings were given (2) the temporal proximity of the stop and the consents (3) presence of intervening circumstances (4) the purpose an flagrancy of the illegal stop
1. Facts→Kaupp had been bought in for questioning about a missing girl , but was then allowed to leave. Later the half-brother of the missing girl confessed and implicated Kaupp. Officers went to Kaupp’s home at 3 AM, woke him up, handcuffed him, put in the cop car, and took him the station in his boxers.
2. **updates Brown
iv. Hudson v. Michigan→Violation of the “knock and enter” rule doesn’t require a suppression of evidence because of the attenuation of the taint.
1. Facts→Police arrived at Δ’s home to execute a search warrant, they announced their presence, waited a few seconds, and then entered through the unlocked door.
2. Rationale→The “knock and announce” rule protects (1) life and limb (2) property and (3) privacy; it does not protect the government from seeing or taking evidence, so the exclusionary rule is inapplicable.
3. Rule→Attenuation occurs when (1) the causal connection is remote and (2) when the specific interests protected by the particular constitutional guarantee wouldn’t be served by suppression.
Exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule: Good Faith
United States v. Leon→Initiated the Good Faith Exception
Rule:
v. United States v. Leon→Initiated the Good Faith Exception
1. Facts⇒The execution of a residential search warrant resulted in evidence of drug trafficking. Δ argued that evidence should be suppressed because the warrant, which was based on stale and insufficient info was illegal and invalid.
2. Rule⇒The exclusionary rule does not apply in situations where an objectively reasonable officer would have believed the warrant to be valid.
a. *This should be determined on a case-by-case basis, and courts should consider: (1) all the facts and circumstances known to the officers in the case (2) ask whether a reasonable officer with these facts and reasonable knowledge of the law would have relied on the warrant
Exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule: Good Faith
Groh v. Ramirez
Herring v. United States
Groh v. Ramirez⇒an officer’s execution of a warrant that failed to list the particulars of what was to be searched and seized and failed to incorporate by reference its supporting application did not satisfy the good faith. **The officer here prepared the warrant himself and knew it was deficient.
Herring v. United States⇒The exclusionary rule is inapplicable in a situation in which the police have not acted culpably.
- Facts⇒A sheriff dept. employee failed to update the database to recall an arrest warrant for Δ. Relying on this, an officer arrested Δ and preformed a search incident to arrest that revealed drugs.
- Rationale⇒More that simple negligence is needed; in order to apply the exclusionary rule, one must (1) prove the individual officer’s error arose beyond simple negligence and (2) prove that excluding evidence would contribute to the deterrence significantly enough to justify the social costs of exclusion.
