#10990 - Exclusionary Rule - Criminal Procedure: Investigations

Exclusionary rule: what happens when the 4th amen is violated?

1. Rule: Evidence obtained in violation of 4th amen cannot be used as evidence in a (federal) criminal prosecution

   1. Protection of the 4th amen is of no value unless we exclude evidence obtained in violation of the 4th amen

      1. Weeks: ran a lottery through the mail and found evidence in his house without a search warrant

   2. Applies to the states because it is a constitutional rule (Mapp v Ohio: lewd books and pics)

      1. Three justifications

         1. Deterrence—lever to deter police misconduct because other remedies are illusory

         2. Example—courts and judicial administration need to teach people importance of the law and respect of the law

         3. Judicial integrity—something disreputable about the courts relying on unconstitutionally obtained evidence

      2. Old rule (Wolf v Colorado)

         1. Exclusionary rule is a matter of judicial implication

2. Scope of exclusionary rule

   1. Fruit of the poisonous tree is excluded; must be fruit of YOUR tree; bars physical material obtained during or as a direct result of unconstitutional invasion

      1. Wong Sun:

         1. Toy made statement when he was arrested after police entered his home in violation of 4th amen, police then discovered heroine; both statement and heroine are fruit and excluded

         2. Wong Sun’s statement is admissible; he was arrested illegally but then he voluntarily came back; heroine can also be used against him there was no violation of his 4th amen rights in seizing the heroine (standing)

   2. EXCEPTIONS: exclusion is the last resort

      1. Attenuation

         1. So attenuated as to dissipate the taint (Wong Sun)

         2. If chain of consequences is too remote

      2. Convictions finalized before Mapp

      3. Impeachment of testifying D (Walder)

         1. Exclusionary rule still applies if evidence is used to impeach witness other than D

            1. Don’t like the idea of defendants being given a license to perjure themselves

            2. No additional deterrent necessary, evidence has already been excluded for other purposes

      4. Independent source

         1. Allows admission of evidence that has been discovered by means wholly independent of any constitutional violation

      5. Inevitable discovery (hypothetical)

         1. Allows admission of evidence that would have been discovered anyways through legal means

         2. Nix v Williams: Christian burial speech, girl’s body would have been discovered by search team

         3. Rationale

            1. Don’t want to put the prosecution in a worse position based on the police violation

            2. Don’t want police to profit from the illegality, so put them in the same position as if the violation had not occurred

         4. Preponderance of the evidence

      6. Nexus

         1. Need a nexus between the kind of violation at issue and the suppression of the evidence or else evidence is admissible

            1. New York v Harris: police violated Payton but confession was made in stationhouse; Payton protects physical integrity of the home and exclusion of subsequent statement does not serve that purpose; confession made in house would be excluded

         2. Exclusionary rule does not apply to violations of knock and announce rule; per se rule

            1. Hudson: violation of knock and announce rule did not get them the evidence, would have gotten evidence if they waited; doesn’t serve purpose of knock and announce rule

      7. Ker-Frisbie doctrine

         1. Can’t suppress yourself, only evidence is suppressed

      8. Good faith

         1. Good faith reliance on PC determination by magistrate will not warrant exclusion (Leon)

            1. Exclusionary rule meant to deter police misconduct not judicial error or misjudgment

         2. Good faith reliance on computer system/someone not at scene—hard to know how far court will take this

            1. Herring: officer called another dept and they said there was a warrant outstanding but it should have been deleted from system; error was attenuated from arrest

            2. Police misconduct must be sufficiently deliberate that rule will deter, and sufficiently culpable that deterrence is worth the price paid (reckless, deliberate, or grossly negligence or recurring negligence)

   3. Standing (but SCOTUS says don’t call it standing)

      1. Defendant cannot invoke the exclusionary rule to complain against evidence obtained in violation of somebody else’s 4th amen rights

      2. Can only invoke exclusionary rule for evidence obtained in violation of YOUR 4th amen rights

         1. Need some connection...