When Evidence is Actually Excluded
Violation of the Fourth Amendment does not result in the automatic exclusion of evidence. Exclusion requires:
- an unreasonable search or seizure that triggers the remedy of exclusion
- the defendant claiming the remedy has standing
- the facts do not support applying an exception to the exclusionary rule.
Exclusionary Rule
When an individual with standing claims that evidence obtained as a direct or derivative result of an unreasonable search or seizure is inadmissible.
Purpose of the Exclusionary Rule?
The exclusionary rule is aimed at deterrence of constitutional violations. It is not a remedy for those whose rights have been violated.
Fruit of Poisonous Tree Doctrine
In addition to excluding all evidence that has been illegally obtained, any additional evidence acquired directly or indirectly from the illegal arrest, search, or seizure, must also be excluded. But remember that standing is still required (evidence cannot grow out of a constitutional violation against someone else).
Fruit of Poisonous Tree: Miranda Violations
The fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine is generally inapplicable to Miranda violations.
Exceptions to Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine
- Include:
- Independent evidence
- Inevitable discovery
- Attenuation
Independent Evidence
Evidence obtained from a source independent of the original illegality.
Inevitable Discovery
Exception where P admit that although evidence has been obtained through the Ds poisonous tree, law enforcement would have inevitable discovered the evidence through a different, independent source. However the inevitable discovery must have already been set in motion before the constitutional violation.
Attenuation
When the obtaining of the evidence is sufficiently attenuated from the constitutional violation. The attenuation exception turns on a combination of the flagrancy of the violation and the distance between violation and obtaining of evidence. Factors supporting attenuation include:
- different locations
- the passage of time
- different officers; and
- a valid Miranda waiver
Balancing Approach to the Exclusionary Rule
The courts see that the only benefit of the exclusionary rule is to prevent future violations by law enforcement officers. Thus courts will balance the impact on deterrence v. impact of exclusion (setting potential criminals free).
Applicability of the Exclusionary Rule: Context in Which the Evidence Is Used
The exclusionary rule precludes only the use of suppressed evidence in Ps case-in-chief. The rule does not apply to:
- impeachment (except for confessions that have been coerced or immunized)
- indictments
- civil proceedings in another jurisdiction
- deportation and parole revocation hearings
Challenging Warrants
Remember that a bad warrant is not enough for exclusion. Pursuant to the good-faith exception, the defendant must also show that police acted in bad faith when they obtained or relied on the defective warrant.
Good Faith Exception
Evidence obtained pursuant to an invalid warrant will not be excluded if a reasonably well-trained officer would have believed that the warrant was valid. This exception has been extended to ordinary police negligence but not gross or systemic negligence.
Exceptions to Good Faith Exception
- When police lie or mislead the court in attaining a warrant
- The magistrate is not neutral or detached
- No reasonable police officer would have believed the warrant was valid
Suppression Hearing
During a trial, a D has a right to hearing at which time the judge determines the admissibility of the evidence out of the jury’s presence.
BOP at a Suppression Hearing
It is the government’s burden to establish admissibility of the evidence by a preponderance.
Ds Testimony at the Suppression Hearing
May not be used against him at trial on the substantive issue of guilt (but could likely be used for impeachment).
Effect of Admitting Illegally Obtained Evidence
Admitting illegally obtained evidence constitutes reversible error unless, the error is harmless. BOP is on goverment to prove BRD that the error did not contribute to a conviction.
