Violations of the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments

Question 1

The Exclusionary Rule and Fruit of the Poisonous Tree

Answer 1

Evidence obtained in violation of the defendant’s 4th, 5th, or 6th Amendment rights is inadmissible in a criminal case. Additionally, all evidence obtained as a result of the constitutional violation is inadmissible as fruit of the poisonous tree. NOTE, these exclusionary rules do NOT apply to Miranda violations; they only apply to 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendment violations (see above for Miranda violations).

Question 2

The exclusionary rule does NOT apply if:

Answer 2

The police had an independent source for the evidence that was distinct from the original illegal source;

The discovery of the evidence was inevitable regardless of the violation;

There is attenuation in the causal chain, such that intervening events and the passage of time can remove the taint;

OR

The police relied in good faith on either:
Existing law that was later declared unconstitutional; OR
A warrant that, while facially valid, is later found to be defective.

Question 3

When grand jury relies on inadmissible (due to illegal searches) evidence while issuing indictment, is dismissal of the indictment the proper remedy?

Answer 3

NO.

the appropriate remedy would be for the trial judge to exclude the evidence from the trial, not to dismiss the indictment.

Question 4

What if someone else’s 4th amendment rights were violated, and now D is on trial and wants to supress that evidence?

Answer 4

Can’t, because a person only has standing to claim a search or seizure violated the Fourth Amendment when the evidence was obtained from a search or seizure that violated that person’s own ‘‘legitimate expectation of privacy.’’

This means that even if the defendant owns the property in question, or is present when the search takes place, he will have no standing to challenge the search unless the search violated his legitimate expectation of privacy as to the place being searched.

Question 5

What is use immunity and what protection does it afford?

Answer 5

Immunized from the use of his testimony, or evidence derived from that testimony. (The other type of immunity is transactional immunity, under which, in general, the witness is immunized from prosecution for any crime related to the transaction to which the witness testifies.) When a defendant is given use immunity and then prosecuted, the prosecution bears the “affirmative duty to prove that the evidence it proposes to use is derived from a legitimate source wholly independent of the compelled testimony.”

EG, D given use immunity during grand jury proceedings, then says yeah I did it along with X, and this is only reason they know about X, then X wants to testify at D’s trial, will D be successful in objecting to X’s testimony? Yes, bc use immunity forbid prosecution from evidence derived from D’s testimony.

Note: Though not in this situation, a prosecutor can otherwise bargain away the rights of one co-D in a deal with another…that’s how it be with these plea bargains.