Criminal Procedure 9 TH EDITION JOEL SAMAHA WADSWORTH PUBLISHING

Criminal Procedure 9 TH EDITION JOEL SAMAHA WADSWORTH PUBLISHING

Remedies for Constitutional Violations I: The Exclusionary Rule CHAPTER 10

The Exclusionary Rule The U.S. legal system, like all others, excludes the use of some irrelevant or untrustworthy evidence in court. BUT, the exclusionary rule, mandating courts to ban the introduction of good evidence obtained by bad law enforcement is mostly found in the United States. Judge Cardoza put it this way: The culprit goes free because the constable blundered. (People v. Defore, 1926)

The Exclusionary Rule Bad methods refers to police actions that violate any of five constitutional rights: 1. The Fourth Amendment ban on unreasonable searches and seizures 2. The Fifth Amendment ban on coerced incriminating statements 3. The Sixth Amendment right to counsel 4. The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment guarantees of due process of law in administering identification procedures.

History of the Exclusionary Rule YEAR CASE RESULT 1914 Weeks v. U.S. The U.S. Supreme Court created the exclusionary rule, but it applied only to federal courts and covered only private papers and belongings. 1920 Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. U.S. The Court expanded the rule to cover evidence that was indirectly based on illegal government action (fruit of the poisonous tree). 1925 Agnello v. U.S. The court expanded the rule to cover contraband. 1949 Wolf v. Colorado The Court applied the Fourth Amendment, but not the exclusionary rule, to state proceedings; states could decide the remedy for themselves. 1961 Mapp v. Ohio The Court applied the exclusionary rule to state criminal proceedings. 1984 U.S. v. Leon The exclusionary rule isn t a constitutional right; it s a device to protect constitutional rights.

Justifications for the Exclusionary Rule The following provide justifications for the exclusionary rule: 1. Constitutional rights The Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights wouldn t mean anything without the exclusion. 2. Judicial integrity The courts shouldn t participate in unconstitutional behavior by approving it. 3. Deterrence Prevent unconstitutional conduct by government officers.

The Social Cost of the Exclusionary Rule The social cost of the rule freeing guilty people and undermining the prosecution s case by keeping good evidence out of court led the Supreme Court to limit it to cases it believes are most likely to deter police misconduct.

Exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule The Court has created numerous exceptions to the exclusionary rule to cover cases that it believes don t deter police misconduct. Seven of the major exceptions are: 1. Collateral use 2. Cross-examination 3. Attenuation of the taint of unconstitutional conduct 4. Independent source 5. Inevitable discovery 6. The Good Faith Exception 7. The Knock-and-Announce Exception

Collateral Use Collateral use Illegally obtained evidence is admissible in all non-trial settings (bail hearings, preliminary hearings, grand jury proceedings, habeas corpus proceedings).

Cross Examination During cross examination, the prosecution can use illegally obtained evidence to undermine (impeach) defense witnesses (including the defendant s) credibility.

Attenuation, Independent Source and Inevitable Discovery These three exceptions apply to the fruit-of-thepoisonous tree doctrine. The basic idea of the doctrine is that the government shouldn t be in a better position after it breaks the law but, these exceptions deal with making sure it is not worse.

Attenuation Attenuation means thinning, weakening, or emaciation. Tainted evidence is admissible if the totality of circumstances in the case proves that the poisonous connection between police illegality and the evidence has weakened (attenuated) enough.

Independent Source Tainted evidence is admissible if, after violating the Constitution, officers get the same evidence in a totally separate lawful action.

Inevitable Discovery Tainted evidence is admissible if police law breaking produced the evidence but the evidence would have been discovered eventually anyway.

The Reasonable, Good Faith Exception The reasonable, good faith exception, created by U.S. v. Leon (1984), allows the government to use evidence obtained from searches based on unlawful search warrants if officers honestly and reasonably believed they were lawful. The law was created to prevent misconduct. The rule has no deterrent effect if officers believed they were doing everything legitimately.

Social Costs and Deterrence There is a social cost for deterring law enforcement officers from violating individuals rights: keeping good evidence from juries may set some criminals free. There are two, competing, assumptions. 1. That the exclusionary rule will deter illegal searches and seizures; and 2. That the social cost is too high (deterrence can t simply pay it s way ).