Select Page

Criminal Procedure
University of Kentucky School of Law
Lawson, Robert G.

Ch. 6 OUTLINE: Arrest, Search and Seizure
I. The Exclusionary Rule
A. The Rule
            – The general rule in criminal procedure that evidence obtained in violation of the 4th may                                     not be used against the individual whose rights were violated in obtaining the evidence
            – Purpose (Objectives of ExR as they are built into the 4th)
            1) Protect the citizens by depriving the police of the benefits of their illegality – there is no                             other effective remedy here,
                        2) Integrity of the courtsà Don’t want to act as an accomplice
B. History of the Exclusionary Rule
            (1) Weeks v. US (1914)
                        – The 4th requires fed. courts to exclude evidence obtained through an illegal search and seizure
                        – This was a way to deter police from violating the 4th
                        – Weeks was not based on any explicit Const. provision, but was a matter of judicial implication
            (2) Wolf v. Colorado (1949) 4th does not require exclusion of evidence obtained in violation of 4th
                        – D was convicted in a state court that admitted evidence that would have been inadmissible                                          in a fed. prosecution b/c it was obtained in violation of the 14th
            – While the 4th’s prohibition of unR searches and seizures applies to the states, it does not also                              require state courts to exclude evidence obtained in violation of the 4th as it does in fed. courts
            – if the SC is going to take the rule from Weeks and apply it to the state court, they have to                  find it in the 4th – Ct. said there is no Const. authority here b/c nothing in the Const.                       says that a 4th violation creates the need for the ExR
             REASONING:          – ExR is not constitutional, but was a federal remedy
                        -the way in which sanctions should work should be left up to the individual states to
                        – Dissent: In the absence of an ExR of evidence to deter police violating the 4th, then the 4th                               is an empty promise to privacy
            (3) Mapp v. Ohio (1961) Exclusionary Rule Constitutionalized (Applies to States)
                        – Police presented D a “warrant” to look for info. related to a bombing, upon forcibly                                                             searching the whole house they found porn, the materials were introduced into evidence
           * extreme case of police misconduct and violates all the 4th was designed to accomplish  
            – Ohio Court let the evidence in based on Wolf (even if the search was unR, it is not                                   prevented from using the unconst. seized evidence at trial)
             HOLDING: overrules Wolf
            – Recognizing that the civil remedies touted in Wolf for 4th violations were illusory at best,                             we hold that all evidence obtained by searched in violation of the Const. is, by the same                            authority, inadmissible in state court
            * It is a Const. violation, thus the ExR is part of the 4thà a liberal interpretation of the 4th
            * The SC would have no authority to say how the OH courts deal with this problem except                   by incorporating it into the 4th- this is the only way to have substance to this right
                        – The right to privacy in the 4th is enforceable against the states, and that right is const. in                                                             origin, thus we can no longer permit that right to remain an empty promise
C. Exception to the Exclusionary Rul

ies to Warrants (later held invalid) when:
                                    1)            False information was given (dishonestly or recklessly) by officer to mislead judge
                                    2)            Judge issues warrant and then steps out of role as a neutral official
                                    3)            **The warrant is so deficient that an objectively well-informed officer would know                                        there was no probable cause. 
            (2) ExR will not be extended to warrantless searches
            (3) Exception to ExR extended when there are other problems with the warrant
                        –  Massachusetts v. Sheppard – wrong form filled out, judge told PO he would fix it
                                    – An officer need not disbelieve a judge who tells him that a warrant authorizes the                                                                search he has requested.                                                                                
                        (a) Does not extend when R officer knows warrant not valid
                                    Groh v. Ramirez (2004), in the warrant PO mistakenly did not enter items to be seized
                                                – Needed to avoid general searches of evidence of crime
                                                – The outcome here may have been based on the change of the SC
            (4) Reliance on a statute or appellate court- GF exception applies (no inc. deterrence)