The Exclusionary Rule Flashcards
Define the Exclusionary Rule.
Exclusionary Rule: Evidence gathered in violation of D’s 4th Amendment rights is not admissible in a criminal trial against the D.
Weeks v. United States
(Facts: Fed Officers enter D’s home w/o warrant, seize letters/mail they believe to contain transportation of lottery tickets via US mail (while illegal).
How did the court hold?
Holding: SCOTUS unanimously held that this violated D’s 4th Am rights and excluded them from trial under the ER.
*First application in a federal prosecution.
Mapp v. Ohio: does the exclusionary rule apply to state prosecutions as well?
(Facts: State officers illegally enter D’s home and see porn, which was illegal.)
Holding: The Exclusionary Rule applies to the states under the DPC/incorporation clause of the 14th Am.
Exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule: INNBG
- May a prosecutor use illegally obtained evidence–in violation of the 4th Am–to impeach D for credibility?
- May illegally obtained evidence be used in non-trial criminal proceedings? E.g., grand jury proceedings, bail proceedings, revocation hearings etc.
- May illegally obtained evidence be used in non-trial civil proceedings? E.g., administrative hearings like deportation.
- Is the Body/Identity ever excludable?
- When officer reasonably relies in good faith on a search warrant that is later found invalid, is that evidence admissible? (US. v. Leon)
Exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule:
- Impeachment at Trial
- Non-Criminal Proceedings
- Non-trial Civil Proceedings
- Body or Identity–is never suppressible as the fruit of an unlawful arrest, search, or interrogation.
- Good Faith Exception* See US v. Leon*
United States v. Leon: SEARCH WARRANT Good Faith Exception
(Facts: Facially valid search warrant issued by state ct judge for drugs at residence. Trial ct found insufficient PC to justify the SW and suppressed the seized evidence.)
Holding: Evaluation of costs v. benefits of ER (as a deterrent) for officer reasonably relying on the SEARCH WARRANT
Good Faith Test: Absence of probable cause will not result in exclusion if officer’s reliance on the magistrate’s determination of probable cause was objectively reasonable, unless facially invalid or officer knowingly /recklessly made false statements.
Exceptions to the Good Faith Rule:
- (Hint: deals with the affiant’s conduct)
- (Hint: deals w/ magistrate’s conduct)
- (Hint: URA)
- (Hint: FD)
- (Hint: PIL)
Exceptions to the Good Faith Exception (for PC necessary to execute Search warrants):
- Affiant lied or made reckless statements
- Magistrate acted as a rubber stamp for the police
- Unreasonable Reliance on the Affidavit (because so lacking of indicia to render belief in existence unreasonable).
- Facially Deficient Warrant (lacks specific place and items to search)
- Evidence recited in affidavit was illegally obtained.
Other Good Faith Rules:
- Can Good Faith Rule cure improperly executed search warrants?
- Does the Good Faith Exception apply when the officer realizes it is no longer valid or PC no longer exists?
Other Good Faith Rules:
- Good Faith Exception cannot cure an improperly executed warrant.
- Good Faith Exception does not apply when the officer realizes it’s no longer valid or that PC no longer exists.
Arizona v. Evans: is the Good Faith Exception to PC in search warrants extended to situations of searches w/o warrants?
(Facts: a PO relied on a clerical error made by a court employee; because of the error, the patrol car computer showed an outstanding misdemeanor warrant for D’s arrest; a subsequent warrantless search of the D’s car incident to the arrest revealed marijuana).
Rule: The Good Faith Exception has been extended to non-warrant searches based on error by court rather than PO.
Herring v. US: Does Good Faith Exception extend to police negligence?
(Facts: Police employee tells PO that computer shows D has outstanding warrant. PO arrests D. SIA finds drugs in pocket and gun in car. Later, PO learns of mistake. Warrant had already been executed)
Holding: Yes, the Good Faith Exception extends to Police Negligence, but not Reckless or Deliberate Conduct.
Rule: To trigger the ER, police conduct met be sufficiently deliberate that exclusion can meaningfully deter it, and sufficiently culpable that such deterrence is worth the price paid by the justice system.
Davis v. North Carolina: what happens when police search under binding judicial precedent later overturned?
Rule: Searches conducted in objectively reasonable reliance on binding appellate precedent are not subject to the exclusionary rule.
ER is a bitter pull soviet must swallow as a last resort.
Who has standing to suppress evidence under the Exclusionary Rule?
D must have at least a property interest or legitimate expectation of privacy in the place searched to assert 4th Am rights under the Exclusionary Rule.
