Arrest, Search and Seizure
Fourth Amendment Exclusionary Rule
· General Rule –Evidence obtained by an illegal search or seizure is not admissible in a criminal proceeding against the suspect as proof of guilt.
· Application: The exclusionary rule applies to both the federal and state governments.
o Federal Gov’t – Weeks v. United States (1914): The 4th Amendment bars the use of evidence obtained through an illegal search and seizure in federal prosecutions
o States-
§ Old Rule – Wolf v. Colorado (1949): In a prosecution in a state court for a state crime the 14th Amendment does not forbid the admission of evidence obtained by an unreasonable search and seizure.
§ Modern Rule – Mapp v. Ohio (1961): All evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Constitution is inadmissible in state court
o Purpose – Deter unlawful police conduct.
· Exceptions – There are several exceptions where evidence seized in violation of the Fourth Am will not be excluded.
o Police Good Faith – United States v. Leon (1984):Evidence seized by police officers acting on an objectively reasonable belief that conduct did not violate the 4th Am is admissible.
§ Exception to Good Faith –
· 1. Affiant misled or lied to the magistrate. Franks v. Delaware
· 2. The magistrate has wholly abandoned his judicial role. Lo-Ji Sales v. New York (judge had effectively became a police officer in the case)
· 3. The warrant is defective on its face [e.g. failure of warrant to state with particularity the place to be searched or the things to be seized]. Massachusetts v. Shepard
· 4. The affidavit on which the warrant was issued was so lacking probable cause that no reasonable officer would have relied on it. Brown v. Illinois
§ Other Exclusionary Rule Exceptions
· United States v. Calandra: Use of illegally obtained evidence in grand jury proceeding allowed.
· Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole v. Scott: Use in parole violation hearings allowed.
· INS v. Lopez-Mendoza: Use in deportation proceedings allowed.
· United States v. Janis: IRS proceedings.
· Illinois v. Krull: Reliance on Statute
· Stone v. Powell (1976): Habeas corpus proceedings. [Federal court need no apply the exclusionary rule on habeas review of a Fourth Amendment claim absent a showing that the state prisoner was denied an opportunity for a full and fair litigation of the claim at trial and on direct review. This is a judicially created remedy rather than a constitutional right.]
· Scope of the Exclusionary Rule
o Direct Evidence – All evidence that has been illegally obtained must be excluded.
o Fruit of the Poisonous Tree – Other evidence that has bee acquired, directly or indirectly, as a result of an illegal search or arrest [the “fruit of the poisonous tree” ] must be excluded as well.
o Impeachment:
Search and Seizure
· Generally
o Constitutional Law: The Fourth Amendment prohibits the government from conducting unreasonable searches and seizures.
o Search Defined: A search can be defined as an
ons, i.e. hot pursuit.
o Plain View: Florida v. Riley
o Items Knowingly Exposed to Public [i.e. Garbage]: California v. Greenwood (1988): Where a person knowingly exposes something to the public, there no reasonable expectation of privacy.
o Open Field and Curtilage: Oliver v. United States (1984): There is no expectation of privacy in an “open field.” This is due to visibility and access to the public in open fields.
§ Curtilage Defined: The area immediately surrounding and associated with the home. The curtilage is the area to which extends the intimate activity associated with the “sanctity of a man’s home and the privacies of life.” Criteria for determining curtilage –
o 1. What is the area used for?
o 2. What measure taken to block the view?
o 3. Is it included in an enclosure that includes the home?
o 4. Proximity to the home?
§ RULE: Curtilage has the same protection as the home [probable cause and warrant, generally].
o Lawful Public Vantage Point [i.e. Air Surveillance]- Florida v. Riley (1989): There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in areas viewed from a lawfully public vantage point.
In California v. Ciraolo (1986), the Court held that airplane flyover at 1000 feet did not amount to a search.
