· Unreasonable searches and seizures.
· Probable Cause
· The place has to be specifically named
The 4th Amendment states, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
· The exclusionary rule provides that evidence obtained by violating defendant’s constitutional rights may not be introduced by the prosecution at defendant’s trial for purposes of proving the defendant’s guilt.
· Applies to 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendment
· The exclusionary rule is a judge-made rule.
o The Supreme Court has held that the exclusionary rule is not required by the U.S. Constitution. Instead, the rule has been created by the Supreme Court as a means of deterring the police from violating the Fourth, Fifth, and other Amendments.
· Mapp v. Ohio, 1961
o Wolf v. United States – Said the 4th Amendment doesn't apply to state courts.
o Weeks v. United States – Said the 4th Amendment bars the use of evidence secured through an illegal search and seizure.
o The Supreme Court extended the Weeks rule to the state courts.
o Policy for Exclusionary Rule:
§ Deter violation of the Constitution
§ The courts need to do the exclusion bc the 4th Amendment right itself is meaningless w/o the exclusion
§ Judicial integrity à the government has to abide by its own rules. It cannot violate it, it is a matter of judicial integrity.
Checklist to analyze evidenceà 1. Look at what the violation is (which Amendment does it violate), 2. What possible exceptions apply
Arguments Against the Exclusionary Rule:
· Allowing a guilty person to go free on a technicality à helps the bad guy.
o Public’s view à they get away on a technicality
· Protecting the criminals/guilty people
o If you have nothing to hide, there is nothing to suppress.
· Monetary relief available.
· It may weaken the Fourth amendment bc courts are reluctant to use it.
Arguments in favor of the Exclusionary Rule
· Symbolic effect à you don't want to violate the law. Integrity of the system
· Monetary relief would be inadequate without it.
Alternatives to the Exclusionary Rule:
· Administrative disciplinary procedures
· Criminal process
B. SCOPE OF EXCLUSIONARY SANCTIONS
A defendant seeking to have evidence suppressed must prove:
· 1. Illegality sufficient to trigger the exclusionary sanction;
· 2. The D’s right to invoke that sanction (“standing”);
· 3. That the challenged evidence was obtained as a factual result of the illegality or, as courts often put the matter, that the evidence was “fruit of the poisonous tree.”
o Burden of proof at suppression hearings should impose no greater burden than proof by a preponderance of the evidence.
Wong Sun v. United States, 1963
· Facts: Acting on a tip, federal narcotics agents broke into Toys apartment, and handcuffed him. The entry was without probable cause and therefore illegal. Immediately after entry Toy made a statement accusing Yee of selling narcotics. The agents went immediately to Yee, who surrendered heroin to them and made a statement that he had been sold the drugs by toy and Wong. Wong was arrested without probable cause, and was arraigned and released. Several days later he was interrogated at the offices where he voluntarily came down, and was warned of his right to remain silent, and that he could have a lawyer. Wong responded by making a confession.
· Issue: Whether the confession was admissible.
· RULE: If enough additional factors intervene between the original illegality and the final discovery of evidence, the evidence may be admissible despite the fact that it would not have been discovered “but for” the illegality.
“Standing” or the “Personal Nature” of Federal Constitutional Rights
· Standing to assert exclusionary rule à the ability to make the claim
o A defendant may seek to exclude (a defendant has standing) evidence derived from a search or seizure only if his legitimate expectation of privacy was violated. Rakas v. Illinois
o In general, the Defendant may assert the exclusionary rule only to bar evidence obtained through violation of his own constitutional rights. That is, the Defendant may not keep out evidence obtained through police action that was a violation of X’s rights but not a violation of the Defendant’s own rights.
§ The defendant must have an expectation of privacy.
§ Improper search and seizure of someone else that leads to you, does not violate your rights.
Fruit of the Poisonous Tree
· Rule: Once a D establishes a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights, he is entitled to suppression of all “fruit of that poisonous tree.”
o Derivative Evidence Rule à All evidence derived from a violation of the D’s rights must be suppressed.
§ Deter police from violations
o Fruit of the poisonous tree doesn't have to be physical; it can be statements made.
o A D seeking to invoke the “fruits” doctrine must establish that the challenged evidence was obtained by police as a factual result of a violation of his rights.
· Limits on Fruits Doctr
o Exclusionary rule is to deter police misconduct, rather than to punish errors of judges and magistrates.
o Thus if a magistrate judge gives warrant based on bad probable cause, any evidence seized from the defective warrant (due to judges error) is still admissible.
· Applies to the 4th Amendment ONLY
· Exceptions to Good Faith Exception so the Exclusionary Rule will Still Apply:
o 1.Misleading Affidavit: When the warrant is used from deliberate or reckless false info in an affidavit.
o 2. When the magistrate fails to act in a neutral and detached manner
o 3. Inadequate Affidavit: When the affidavit is greatly lacking probable cause which renders official belief in its existence entirely unreasonable
§ Ex. Affidavit concludes there is probable cause but has no facts to support it, therefore it is unreasonable for a cop to act on a warrant issued on this affidavit
o 4. Facially Deficient Warrant
§ Warrant is so facially deficient that the officer who executes it cannot reasonably presume its valid.
ú Ex. Warrant does not specify items to be seized
o Invalid statute à If the officer relies on a statute in good faith, than the exception of good faith will apply.
Herring v. United States, 2009 (pg 49)
· Facts: There had been a mistake about the warrant. The Dale County sheriffs computer records are suppose to correspond to actual arrest warrants, which the office maintains. She called a court clerk and learned that the warrant had been recalled five months earlier. This information about the recall did not appear in the computer database. After Morgan contacted Pope who contacted Anderson over a secure radio, Herring had already been placed under arrest.
· Issue: Whether the exclusionary rule should be applied to evidence found as a result of an unlawful arrest, when in-fact, the officers were acting out of “good-faith”?
o No exclusionary rule: The conduct at issue here was not so objectively culpable as to require exclusion, as it was merely negligent and not reckless or deliberate
§ Any marginal deterrence is insufficient to trigger exclusion
ú i.e. a mistake
§ Police conduct must be sufficiently deliberate in order to trigger the exclusionary rule.