The Exclusionary Rule Flashcards
Mapp v. Ohio (police said that they had a warrant, even though they didn’t and the resident allowed them entrance. They found incriminating evidence).
All evidence discovered as a result of a search and seizure conducted in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution (”Constitution”) shall be inadmissible in State court proceedings.
United States v. Leon (The affidavit upon which the search warrant was issued was found to be insufficient on its face after the search recovered substantial evidence. The officers didn’t know it was insufficient).
Reasonable reliance upon an otherwise invalid search warrant does not render evidence obtained during the search inadmissible.
Herring v. United States (they thought they had a valid warrant, so they searched an impounded car finding illegal firearms and arrested him).
The good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies when a police officer makes an arrest based on an outstanding warrant in another jurisdiction, and the information is later found to be incorrect because of a negligent error by that agency.
Davis v. United States (Police conducted a routine traffic stop that eventually resulted in the arrests of the driver for driving while intoxicated and Davis, a passenger, for giving a false name to police. Police handcuffed both men and put them in the back of separate patrol cars before searching the passenger compartment of the vehicle and finding a revolver inside Davis’s jacket pocket. Between the search and when the case wet to trial, this kind of search became unreasonable.)
Searches conducted in objectively reasonable reliance on binding appellate precedent are not subject to the exclusionary rule.
Claiming that the affiant lied to obtain the warrant will result in evidence suppression if:
- the defendant makes a “substantial preliminary showing” that: (a) a false statement was included in the affidavit; (b) the affiant made the false statement “knowingly and intentionally” or with reckless disregard for the truth; and (c) the false statement was essential to the magistrate’s finding of probable cause.
