Crim Pro 3.1.txt

Card Set Information

Author:
LAWYER2
ID:
94552
Filename:
Crim Pro 3.1.txt
Updated:
2011-07-19 14:43:47
Tags:
Exclusionary Rule
Folders:

Description:
Exclusionary Rule
Show Answers:

Home > Flashcards > Print Preview

The flashcards below were created by user LAWYER2 on FreezingBlue Flashcards. What would you like to do?


  1. Exclusionary Rule
    Precludes gov't using evidence seized in violation of D's constitutional rights to convict D of a crime
  2. Remedy of Supression
    • Suppresion of illegal evidence
    • Exclusionary rule applies to 4th Am
    • F.O.P.T. rule applies to other Amendments
  3. Standing
    Only a person injured can claim right to have illegally obtained evidence supressed
  4. Standing
    Pesonal Nature of Protections
    • -person has standing when his/her R.E.O.P has been invaded (Rakas v. Illinois)
    • -Guest has standing to challenge illegal search (Minnesota v. Olson)
  5. Why Exclusionary Rule (ER) was created?
    • Systematic use of illegal evidence compromises integrity of judicial system
    • Public trust - use of illegal evidence jepordizes faith in court system
    • Individual rights - use of illegal evidence intrudes on basic individual rights
    • Deterrence - punishes unlawful police behavior
  6. E.R. Rulings
    (Weeks v. United States)
    • Fourth Amendment bars use of evidence unconstitionally seized by federal officers
    • Judicially derived remedy
  7. Wolf v. Colorado (1949)
    State are subject to substantive porvisions of 4th Am. through the 14th Am. Due process analysis
  8. Rochin v. California 1952 (stomach pumped)
    14th Am violated by consciencesly schocking conduct to elicit evidence is inadmissable
  9. Mapp v. Ohio (1961) Bright-line rule
    4th Am exclusionary rule now applies to ALL state cases to!
  10. Knock n Announce - ER
    (Hudson v. Michigan)
    Evidence seized where there is a K & A violation will NOT be suppressed solely on a K & A violation.
  11. ER - Good Faith Execption
    (United States v. Leon) Landmark case
    • Officers good faith reliance of warrant issued by neutral magistrate is a "good faith" exception to Exclusionary Rule
    • Must be objectively reasonable
  12. United States v. Payner
    Lower courts should not use Due Process powers to exclude evidence w/o the Leon cost-benefit rule
  13. ER - Warrant Particularity
    (Groh)
    Inadequate invalid warrant is not saved by an adequate application for the warrant
  14. ER - Book keeping error
    (Herring)
    4th Am does not automatically suppress evidence obtained through book-keeping error.
  15. ER - Civil proceedings
    (Janis)
    Exclusionary Rule is not applicable to civil trials
  16. ER - 3rd Party
    (Rakas)
    No vicariously asserted 4th Am rights
  17. Fruit of Poisonous Tree Doctrine (FOPT)
    Derivative Evidence Rule
    Prohibits prosecution from using evidence directly obtained from a Constitutional viloation
  18. Three Exceptions - FOPT Doctrine
    • Independent Source Doctrine
    • Inevitable Discovery Rule
    • Attenuated Connection Principle
  19. Independant Source Doctrine
    evidence in question is not FOPT and not linked to gov't illegality
  20. Inevitable Discovery Rule
    police would have eventually discovered evidence lawfully w/o illegally obtained info
  21. Attenuated Connection Principle
    • Intervening event between initial illegality and seizure of challenged evidence.
    • Can be time, place, or people
  22. Nix v. Williams
    (inevitable discovery)
    • Police cannot put themselves in a better position resulting from illegally obtained evidence.
    • Determined by preponderence of the evidence
  23. Brown v. Williams
    illegal fruit may still be admissable if the "taint of the illegality" is purged by knowingly (of illegality) confession thereafter.
  24. ER - Immigration officers
    (Lopez-Rodriquez)
    ussually not allowed, unless there was an egregious violation of the 4th Am
  25. ER - Grand Jury Proceeding
    (United States v. Calandra)
    Exclusionary Rule not applicable to Grand Jury Proceedings.
  26. Chapman v. California
    (Harmless error)
    Harmless error must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

What would you like to do?

Home > Flashcards > Print Preview