(2) Exclusionary Rule

Exclusionary Rule

If one’s constitutional rights were violated when certain evidence was collected, that evidence cannot be used in trial against the defendant

Wolf v Colorado

Facts: Without a search warrant, DAs entered the Medical office of Wolf and obtain medical records to locate witnesses. Julius Wolf (defendant) was convicted in Colorado state court for violating state law. The prosecution’s case rested in part on evidence that would have been inadmissible in federal court, because it was gathered through an unreasonable search and seizure. Wolf appealed to the Supreme Court of Colorado, which upheld the conviction. Wolf petitioned the United States Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari.

Issue: Whether this evidence can be admitted under state courts, even if it was is not allowed in federal courts

Holding:

• Exclusionary rule does not apply to state criminal proceedings

• An unreasonable search or seizure by a state officer violates the Due Process Clause, but that does not necessarily mandate exclusion of evidence.

• the exclusionary rule was developed as a matter of judicial doctrine rather than constitutional requirement.

• It is clear that the exclusion of evidence obtained illegally is not an essential element of the right against arbitrary state intrusion and the Fourth Amendment.

Rule: It is a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment for state actors to gather evidence through unreasonable searches and seizures, but such evidence need not be excluded from state criminal proceedings.

Mapp v Ohio

Facts: Police got a tip that a suspect wanted for questioning related to a bombing was hiding in Dollree Mapp’s (defendant) home. Officers forcibly entered the home without Mapp’s consent. When Mapp demanded to see the warrant, police showed her a piece of paper purported to be a “warrant.” Mapp also tried to call an attorney. However, when Mapp took the “warrant,” police engaged in a physical altercation to retrieve it from her.

Issue: Whether evidence obtained through unreasonable search and seizure admissible in state court for state offenses

Holding:

• Distinguished from Wolf v. Colorado bc many states have adopted laws forbidding the introduction of illegally obtained evidence in criminal proceedings, and more than half have now adopted some form of the Weeks rule. This development is the result of the growing understanding that only the exclusion of illegally obtained evidence provides the necessary incentive to state officials to refrain from unreasonable searches and seizures

• This case essentially overturns Wolf; closes the only courtroom door remaining open to evidence secured by official lawlessness in flagrant abuse of that basic right

• The right to privacy is just as important as any other fundamental right, and there is no reason it should be afforded less protection in state courts.

Rule: Evidence obtained through an unreasonable search and seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment is inadmissible in state criminal proceedings.

US v Leon

Facts: The police received an anonymous tip that two individuals were selling drugs. Police then started an investigation and submitted an affidavit requesting a warrant to search three residences and automobiles. A facially valid search warrant was issued and pursuant to the warrant the police conducted their search.

Issue: Whether evidence obtained in reasonable, good-faith reliance on a facially valid search warrant subject to the Fourth Amendment's exclusionary rule if the warrant is later deemed defective

Holding: 

• The exclusionary rule is not itself a constitutional right but is a judicial remedy intended to deter police from infringing on the 4A; individual’s constitutional rights are prioritized over efficient law enforcement

• However, when the police reasonably rely on a facially valid search warrant, there is no improper police conduct to deter and therefore no Fourth Amendment interests are advanced by excluding the evidence. Therefore, the social cost of excluding the evidence outweighs any Fourth Amendment violation and the evidence must remain admissible at trial.

• When an officer knows or should know that the magistrate issuing a warrant has been mislead, or where an affidavit is so lacking in probable cause that no reasonable officer could reasonably rely on it, or where a warrant is so vague that no reasonable officer could assume it to be valid, the evidence obtained must be excluded

Rule: Evidence obtained in reasonable, good-faith reliance on a facially valid search warrant is not subject to the Fourth Amendment's exclusionary rule, even if the warrant is later deemed defective.

Herring v US

Facts: Facts: Cops found out Herring drove to sheriff’s dept to receive something from an impounded truck. Herring had no outstanding warrants in the current county but in a different county, there was an active arrest warrant for Herring. As Herring left the lot, cop followed him, and pulled him over. The guy had drugs on him. The warrant actually was recalled but the cop did not know it. 

Issue: Where police personnel act negligently and make an administrative error that leads an officer to reasonably believe an arrest warrant exists, is evidence obtained pursuant to the unlawful arrest admissible at trial?

Holding: The arrest is constitutional

• When the illegal police conduct is done in good faith, the exclusionary rule does not apply because there is no unlawful police conduct that needs to be deterred.

• The police requested confirmation of the outstanding arrest warrant. While it is clear that a Dale County officer made a mistake since the warrant’s recall was never properly recorded, this error was made negligently and not deliberately or recklessly

Rule: Where police personnel act negligently, but not recklessly, and lead an officer to reasonably believe an arrest warrant exists, the evidence obtained pursuant to that unlawful arrest remains admissible.

Nix v. Williams

Facts: Williams murdered a child and then went to a different county in Ioha. Williams wants a specific defense attorney. Police drive him back to the county. While driving, the police are asking him questions and Williams is admitting everything, and eventually shows the cops where the body is buried. They found the body. The cops should not have talked to Willams bc he was represented by counsel. (Christian burial case)

Issue: Whether evidence obtained in violation of the Sixth Amendment be admitted if police would have inevitably discovered it

Holding: 

• The prosecution must show discovery would have inevitably occurred by a preponderance of the evidence. Three courts have already determined that the body in this case would have inevitably been discovered by the searchers, and these courts' conclusions are supported by the evidence of the search teams' location and the thoroughness of their search.

Rule: Evidence obtained in violation of the Sixth Amendment may be admitted if police would have inevitably discovered it.

Utah v. Strieff

Facts: Police had a house under surveillance for suspected illegal drug activity. When Edward Strieff (defendant) visited and then left the house, police officer Douglas Fackrell stopped and questioned Strieff. Fackrell did so not because he had reasonable cause to suspect Strieff of criminal behavior, but solely because Fackrell wanted to question visitors about activities inside the house. Fackrell made a routine check of police records, found that Strieff had an outstanding warrant for a minor traffic offense, and arrested Strieff on that warrant. Fackrell then conducted a routine search and seized illegal drugs he found in Strieff's possession. The State of Utah (plaintiff) charged Strieff on drug charges. At trial, Strieff argued that the seized drugs came to light only as the result of Fackrell's unconstitutional search and seizure and that therefore the drugs should be excluded from evidence.

Issue: Whether unconstitutionally seized evidence admissible if lack of flagrant impropriety, lack of temporal proximity, or an intervening circumstance attenuates the chain between police misconduct and the seizure

Holding: 

• Attenuation exception: exclusionary rule's beneficial effect in deterring police misconduct is outweighed by the social cost

• Fackrell's misconduct resulted from an inadvertent procedural error and was neither improperly motivated nor flagrant. Moreover, Fackrell's discovery of an outstanding warrant against Strieff was an important intervening factor.

Rule: Unconstitutionally seized evidence is admissible if lack of flagrant impropriety, lack of temporal proximity, or an intervening circumstance attenuates the chain between police misconduct and the seizure.