Exclusionary Rule

Background

Weeks v. US (1914)

• created exclusionary rule

• prohibits admission of illegally seized evidence at the trial

• J. Davy say exclusionary rule essential to personal rights secured by 4th

  • also Court disapproval of illegal police conduct

Wolf v. Colorado (1949)

• makes 4th, not exclusionary rule, binding upon States

  • maj says exclusion non-constitutional, made up by Court and may be struck down by Congress

  • dissent argue need exclusion to enact 4th

• Court had to decide case-by-case basis b/c this

• exclusion apply to fed agents, not state police

• silver platter = since no exclusion rule, state parties can illegally obtain evid & present to Court & fed agents “on silver platter”

Mapp v. Ohio (1961)

• applied exclusionary to States

• police deterrent and preserve judicial integrity

US v. Leon

• good faith exception to exclusionary rule

Herring v. US (2009)

• negligent errors and illegal seizures do not automatically trigger rule

• if mistake reasonable, no exclusion

Utah v. Streiff (2016)

• if suspicionless random step turns up person w/ outstanding warrant for arrest (even for a minor traffic ticket) may make search. If illegal substances, may be used @ trial

Mapp v. Ohio (1961)

Vote: 6-3

Facts: Miss Mapp sex worker, also run “boarding house.” Police tip that fugitive wanted for bombing staying @ her home. Miss Mapp denied police entrance into her home until they produced a search warrant. They forcibly entered her home, prevented counsel w/ her attorney, and showed her a fake warrant, which she grabbed and hid in her bosom. She was then arrested for “belligerent” behavior. the police found lewd and lascivious books, pictures, and photographs in violation of Ohio’s Revised Code. This was presented as evidence at the trial. Did not find suspect; just dirty mags.

Issue: Can evidence produced from a warrantless search by State police be presented at trial?
Holding: No.

Opinion:

(1) We “close the only courtroom door remaining open to evidence secured by official lawlessness in flagrant abuse of that basic right…”

(2) Need exclusionary rule to enforce 4th, otherwise grant right but withhold privilege.

Dissent:

(1) Should be up to individual states to adopt exclusionary rule.

Comment: No more silver platter, exclusionary rule applied to States.

US v. Leon (1984)

Vote: 6-3

Facts: Alberto Leon’s name came up in an investigation of two other individuals the police suspected of possessing and distribution cocaine etc. Leon motion to suppress evidence b/c police fail to est probably cause in warrant; judicial error, not police misconduct (probable cause not science; two judges can look same thing, diff conclusions). District and appellate reject good faith exception.

Issue: Should there be a good faith exception to the exclusionary rule?
Holding: Yes.

Opinion:
(1) Letting guilty walk away b/c minor police misconduct “offends basic concepts of the criminal justice system”

(2) Should have exception for magistrate errors b/c affects police ☹

Dissent:

(1) Need to protect individual liberty over convicting guilty

(2) Fourth restrains WHOLE gov, not just police officers.

(3) This decision will insulate magistrates from judicial review.

Comment: Says privacy and judicial integrity not important, just deterring police misconduct. Narrowing application of exclusionary rule.

Controversy

• some say exclusion = Constitutional principle

  • criticized for “wagging the dog of the 4th”

• some say evidentiary rule

  • limited or eliminated based on public policy

  • preserved judicial integrity

• deterrence rationale = defensible only if deter police from illegal searches and seizures

  • debate effectiveness