Unit 4 - Remedies Flashcards
The Exclusionary Rule
The “exclusionary rule” provides that evidence obtained as a result of an unconstitutional search or seizure shall be excluded from the criminal prosecution of the party whose rights were violated.
Today SCOTUS has said that the exclusionary rule exists solely to deter violation of the 4th Amendment - deterrence is the dominant argument for the exclusionary rule.
Exclusionary rule is not a right of the D, it an ingredient to the 4th amendment right of the defendant.
Exceptions and Limitations to Exclusionary Rule
- Good Faith
- Standing
- Fruit of the Poisonous Tree and Attenuation
- Inevitable Discovery Doctrine
- Independent Source Doctrine
- Impeachment
Good Faith
When an officer, acting with objective good faith has obtained a search warrant from a judge/ magistrate and acted within its scope = no police illegally and this nothing to deter. Officers reliance on magistrate’s probable cause determination and on the technical sufficiency of the warrant he issues must be objectively reasonable.
Suppression of evidence obtained pursuant to a warrant should be ordered only on a case by case basis and only in those unusual cases in which exclusion will further the purposes of the exclusionary rule (deterrence of violating 4th amendment).
US v. Leon - exclusionary rule about deterring police misconduct not punishing errors of judges/magistrates. deterrence is not towards judges/magistrates who have no stake in the outcome of the case, excluding evidence when they mess up will not deter them or fix their behavior.
Herring v. United States (2009)
An officer’s reasonable reliance on a court administrator error about an outstanding arrest warrant did not lead to application of the exclusionary rule. Evans.
Everyone agrees that ARREST is a 4th amend violation - but should any evidence found during search incident to arrest be excluded? → evidence suppression is NOT automatic - it turns on the culpability of police and potential of exclusion to DETER wrongful police conduct. HERE error was result of isolated negligence attenuated from the arrest.
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.
error could be made by court administrator or another officer.
Reliance on anisolatedadministrative court or police error that erroneously authorizes asearch 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, includingwarrantless activity relating to searches incident to arrest.Davis.
Reliance on legislative statutes that are not “clearly unconstitutional.”Krull.
Exception(s) to the Good Faith Exception (where exclusionary rule would apply)
When reliance is objectively unreasonable:
- Officer knowledge that information in warrant application I false or reckless disregard of truth prevents knowledge that information is false.
- Severe lack of “indicia of probable cause to render official belief in its existence entirely unreasonable.”
-Technical/Facial Insufficiency: lack of particularity in things/persons to be searches or seized or an open-ended warrant (Lo-Ji Sales, Inc. v. New York (1979). - Officer reliance on clearly unconstitutional statement statute. Illinois v. Krill (1987).
Standing Doctrine
Relates to who can complain about police conduct: did police do something illegal to the claimant?
to petition the court to exclude evidence, a defendant had to first establish that he or she had authority or “standing” to assert the claim.
Someone temporarily in another’s home, and present to conduct a business transaction, does NOT have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the house. Minnesota v. Carter. Contra Minnesota v. Olson, Carter was not an overnight guest with a preexisting relationship with owner, was only in apt for a brief time, solely for commercial purposes, and had no prior relationship with owner.
Standing Summary
Katz-style privacy analysis drives theissue of standing.
-Mere ownership is insufficient to establish standing. Rawlings v. Kentucky (1980).
-Individuals rarely have privacy interests inphysical documents held by a third party.United States v. Payner (1980) (documents held in banker’s briefcase); but see Carpenter.
- A passenger in a vehicle who is not the owner does not automatically have standing tochallenge the search of a glove compartment.Rakas v. Illinois(1978).
- Driver of rental vehicle, even if not the owner, hasstanding to challenge search of the vehicle.Byrd v. United States (2018).
For aresidence, mere PERMISSION for the suspect to be on thepremises isnotenough; usage of the residence as a DWELLING place iscrucial to the analysis.
- An overnight guest does have privacy interests in the place wherethe guest is staying even if no ownership interest.Minnesota v.Olson(1990).
- Factors to consider for whethera privacy interest exists:
—Nature and purpose of the stay;
—Duration of visit;
—Relationship between host and guest
Fruit of Poisonous Tree
relates to WHAT flows from the illegal conduct: did the illegality cause the police to find the evidence the claimant seeks to suppress?
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 between the unlawful conduct and discovery was so attenuated as to dissipate the taint.
Basic concept underlying the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine = CAUSATION
BUT FOR the illegal search, would the evidence in question have been found?
- The fruits of an illegal search or arrest must be suppressed unless the “taint” has “dissipated”
- BUT FOR CAUSATION: was the verbal or physical evidence obtained due to an illegal search or arrest?
If it was obtained through an independent source, then it is NOT the fruit of the illegal search
If it would have been “inevitably discovered” then it is not the fruit of the illegal search
- 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?
w/ respect to testimony, was it freely given rather than coerced or induced by official authority? See Ceccolini
had a lot of time passed?
Attenuation Doctrine
Attenuation= evidence derived in “sufficiently distinguishable” way (Wong Sun):
Factors to consider :
Temporal Proximity: Remoteness or time between
Intervening Events:e.g., sufficiently free act (testimony) (Wong Sun;Ceccolini); preexisting valid warrant (Strieff)
Nature of Misconduct: divergence between interest behind violation and excl. rule;flagrancy of misconduct (Hudson; Strieff)
Independent Source? Inevitable discovery?
Independent Source - Did a lawful source independent of the unlawful search/ seizure lead officers to the evidence?
Inevitable Discovery
Has the police not discovered the evidence illegally, would they have discovered it legally?*
*Note how there was no lawful source that led to the information. The Court is tasked with determining whether it would have been discovered has the investigation continued rather than ceased.
