Exclusionary Rule

Question 1

Standing to Search

Answer 1

1. D must have standing under both rules.
   
   • expectation of privacy and physical intrusion into D’s property (trespass)
2. D’s objection must be based upon a violation of her underlying rights.

Question 2

Standing and Vehicles

Answer 2

1. passenger in a vehicle when it is searches does not have standing to challenge the search.
2. BUT passenger in car is “seized” if car is stopped, so passenger can challenge seizure.

Question 3

Fruit of the Poisonous Tree

Answer 3

1. Any derivative or secondary evidence
2. That is obtained as a result of unconstitutional conduct
   
   1. e.g. a confession obtained as a result of an earlier arrest
3. is fruit of the poisonous tree, and
4. like direct evidence obtained in violation of the 4^th amendment, it is inadmissible in the prosecutor’s case in chief.

• in other words, if a search is unreasonable, all derivative evidence must be excluded.

Question 4

Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Exceptions

Answer 4

1. impeachment
   
   1. D who takes witness stand can be impeached with inadmissible FOPT evidence
   2. evidence obtained in violation of Miranda or in an unreasonable search can be used to impeach.
   3. involuntary confession cannot be used to impeach (because unreliable)
2. Does not apply to Miranda confessions.

Question 5

List of Exclusion Exceptions

Answer 5

1. Attenuation of Taint*
2. Inevitable Discovery*
3. Independent Source
4. Good Faith*

*Most often comes up

Question 6

Exclusion Exception

Attenuation of Taint

Answer 6

1. the number and nature of the links between the illegality and police acquisition of the evidence may be such that the taint becomes attenuated.
   
   1. i.e. if the causal line is really long or a lot of stuff happened in between, evidence can be admissible
   2. e.g. illegally arrested D gets released and comes back to confess. He came back on his own.

Question 7

Exclusion Exception Inevitable Discovery

Answer 7

1. the evidence would inevitably have been obtained legally.

Question 8

Exclusion Exception

Independent Source

Answer 8

1. this doctrine applies when there is a source for the discovery and seizure of the evidence that is distinct from the original illegality.
   
   1. e.g. parallel investigation initiated by other officers.
2. source need not be played out completely
   
   1. e.g. if officers who would have validly searched the premises stop because the other officers did it.

Question 9

Exclusion Exception

Good Faith

Answer 9

1. If a reasonable officer would believe that the actions taken were reasonable because of:
   
   1. a warrant, or
   2. a statute later held invalid,
2. Then the officer’s good faith overcomes constitutional deficits in probable cause and particularity.

Does not apply to warrantless searches unless statute allowed search

Question 10

Good Faith Exceptions

Answer 10

1. warrant affidavit is so egregiously lacking in probable cause that no reasonable officer would have relied on it.
2. warrant so vague that officers could not reasonably presume it to be valid
3. Affidavit contains knowing or reckless falsehoods that are necessary to the probable cause finding.
4. Judge who issued the warrant is biased in favor of the prosecution.

Question 11

How to Analyze Good Faith Exceptions

Answer 11

1. Was there a warrant?
2. Was the warrant defective?
3. Did cops have a good reason to rely on the warrant?

Question 12

No Standing In a Residence

Answer 12

1. mere authorized presence in premises searched is not enough.
2. Presence pursuant to a short and “commercial” stay is not enough
3. presence to engage in illegal commercial activity (such as bagging drugs) is definitely not enough for standing.

Question 13

Standing In a Residence

Answer 13

1. if the person owns the premises she always has standing.
2. if the person does not own the premises but resides there then she always has standing.
3. presence as part of overnight personal visit is enough for standing to challenge entry into the home or areas of the home that overnight guests can be expected to access (e.g. living room, dining room, bathroom)
4. no standing for areas where overnight guests usually don’t access, e.g. guest crashing on the couch cannot challenge search to master bedroom.

Question 14

Standing of Seized Property

Answer 14

1. ownership of property seized is usually not sufficient
2. standing is determined based on:
   
   1. whether you have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the area searched, or
   2. Whether you have reasonable expectation of privacy as to the item (e.g. coat or purse)

Question 15

Standing of Seized Property Examples

Answer 15

1. if i hide drugs in friend’s purse, no standing to challenge search of purse. Even though I own the drugs, I have no reasonable expectation of privacy in friend’s purse.
2. Passenger in a car. There’s a bag of drugs with his name on it in the back seat. No standing to challenge search of car.