The flashcards below were created by user
on FreezingBlue Flashcards.
Precludes gov't using evidence seized in violation of D's constitutional rights to convict D of a crime
Remedy of Supression
- Suppresion of illegal evidence
- Exclusionary rule applies to 4th Am
- F.O.P.T. rule applies to other Amendments
Only a person injured can claim right to have illegally obtained evidence supressed
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)
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
(Weeks v. United States)
- Fourth Amendment bars use of evidence unconstitionally seized by federal officers
- Judicially derived remedy
Wolf v. Colorado (1949)
State are subject to substantive porvisions of 4th Am. through the 14th Am. Due process analysis
Rochin v. California 1952 (stomach pumped)
14th Am violated by consciencesly schocking conduct to elicit evidence is inadmissable
Mapp v. Ohio (1961) Bright-line rule
4th Am exclusionary rule now applies to ALL state cases to!
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.
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
United States v. Payner
Lower courts should not use Due Process powers to exclude evidence w/o the Leon cost-benefit rule
ER - Warrant Particularity
Inadequate invalid warrant is not saved by an adequate application for the warrant
ER - Book keeping error
4th Am does not automatically suppress evidence obtained through book-keeping error.
ER - Civil proceedings
Exclusionary Rule is not applicable to civil trials
ER - 3rd Party
No vicariously asserted 4th Am rights
Fruit of Poisonous Tree Doctrine (FOPT)
Derivative Evidence Rule
Prohibits prosecution from using evidence directly obtained from a Constitutional viloation
Three Exceptions - FOPT Doctrine
- Independent Source Doctrine
- Inevitable Discovery Rule
- Attenuated Connection Principle
Independant Source Doctrine
evidence in question is not FOPT and not linked to gov't illegality
Inevitable Discovery Rule
police would have eventually discovered evidence lawfully w/o illegally obtained info
Attenuated Connection Principle
- Intervening event between initial illegality and seizure of challenged evidence.
- Can be time, place, or people
Nix v. Williams
- Police cannot put themselves in a better position resulting from illegally obtained evidence.
- Determined by preponderence of the evidence
Brown v. Williams
illegal fruit may still be admissable if the "taint of the illegality" is purged by knowingly (of illegality) confession thereafter.
ER - Immigration officers
ussually not allowed, unless there was an egregious violation of the 4th Am
ER - Grand Jury Proceeding
(United States v. Calandra)
Exclusionary Rule not applicable to Grand Jury Proceedings.
Chapman v. California
Harmless error must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.