Exclusionary Rule (CRIM PRO 2025)

What is the Exclusionary Rule (ER)?

A judicially created remedy that bars the government from introducing evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Twin goals —> (1) deterring illegal police conduct and (2) preserving judicial integrity.

What constitutional amendment provides the foundation for the Exclusionary Rule?

The Fourth Amendment — specifically, its command that the people be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures.

However, the ER itself is not written into the Constitution; it’s judge-made.

What are the two primary rationales behind the Exclusionary Rule?

1. Deterrence of future unlawful police conduct.

2. Judicial integrity—> courts should not sanction or benefit from constitutional violations.

What is the difference between the remedy (Exclusionary Rule) and the right (Fourth Amendment)?

The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches/seizures; the ER is a remedy for violations of that right.

Not every violation automatically triggers exclusion.

What did Weeks v. United States (1914) establish?

It created the Exclusionary Rule for federal prosecutions, holding that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment must be excluded.

📝 Exam tip: First recognition of exclusion as a remedy, but only applied federally.

What was the holding of Wolf v. Colorado (1949)?

Applied the Fourth Amendment to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment…

….but refused to require the Exclusionary Rule as a remedy. States could choose alternative remedies.

📝 Exam tip: Overruled later by Mapp v. Ohio.

What did Rochin v. California (1952) contribute?

Introduced the “shock the conscience” due process test — evidence obtained through conduct so egregious it shocks the conscience violates Due Process.

📝 Still technically good law for extreme police misconduct separate from 4A.

What was the major impact of Mapp v. Ohio (1961)?

Incorporated the Exclusionary Rule to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. Evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment is inadmissible in state as well as federal court.

📝 Activist decision favoring the Due Process model; overturned Wolf.

What are the two policy justifications emphasized in Mapp v. Ohio?

1. Deterrence of unlawful police behavior.

2. Preservation of judicial integrity (“Courts must not sanction lawless enforcement of the law.”)

What is the procedural mechanism for invoking the Exclusionary Rule?

A Motion to Suppress (MTS) filed pre-trial alleging evidence was obtained in violation of constitutional rights. If granted, the evidence is excluded at trial.

What burden of proof applies at a suppression hearing?

Preponderance of the evidence — the defendant must show entitlement to relief, and the court determines facts under that standard.

What is the standard of review on appeal for suppression rulings?

What is the modern view of the Exclusionary Rule’s purpose according to Herring v. United States (2009)?

The sole purpose of the ER is deterrence; it is not an individual right. Courts apply cost-benefit analysis—exclude only when deterrent benefits outweigh the societal cost of losing reliable evidence.

In what types of proceedings does the Exclusionary Rule not apply?

• Grand jury (U.S. v. Calandra)

• Parole revocation (Penn. Bd. of Probation v. Scott)

• Civil forfeiture or deportation (U.S. v. Janis, INS v. Lopez-Mendoza

• 
  📝 Exam tip: MCQs often test “ER applies only to criminal trials.”

Does the Exclusionary Rule apply to private searches?

No. The Fourth Amendment and ER apply only to government action. Private searches (like FedEx employees opening a box) don’t trigger exclusion unless law enforcement expands the search beyond what the private actor already did.

What did U.S. v. Leon establish?

The Good Faith Exception — evidence obtained under a facially valid search warrant later found invalid is admissible if officers acted in objective good faith (i.e., reasonably relied on the warrant).

What is the objective good faith test from Leon?

Whether a reasonably well-trained officer would have known the search was illegal despite the magistrate’s authorization.

When does the Good Faith Exception not apply?

1. The magistrate was misled by false or reckless information.

2. The magistrate was not neutral/detached.

3. The affidavit was so lacking in probable cause (“bare bones”) that no reasonable officer would rely on it.

4. The warrant was facially deficient (e.g., lacked particularity)

5. or executed improperly.

Articulating the Good Faith Standard

Ask —> “Whether a reasonably well-trained LEO would have reasonably relied on SW”

Yes? —> ER will not apply; EVI not suppressed

No? —> Objective test not satisfied; good faith exception will not apply

What cost-benefit logic did Leon introduce?

The ER applies only if its deterrent effect outweighs the costs to truth-finding. Judicial errors or isolated negligence generally don’t warrant exclusion.

What are examples of “expansions” of the Good Faith Exception?

• Illinois v. Krull (1987): Reliance on a statute later held unconstitutional.

• Arizona v. Evans (1995): Clerical errors by court employees.

• Hudson v. Michigan (2006): Knock-and-announce violations.

• Herring v. U.S. (2009): Police negligence not enough — must be reckless or deliberate.

• Davis v. U.S. (2011): Reliance on precedent later overturned.

Knock and Announce Rule

SEE: Hudson v. Michigan (2006)

When executing a warrant, LE must knock/announce themselves. Exceptions —>

1. circumstances present a threat of physical violence

2. Hot pursuit; prisoner escapes

3. (Exigent Circumstances) Where LEO have reason to believe that EVI would likely be destroyed if advance notice were given

What is the “police culpability” standard from Herring?

Exclusion applies only if police acted deliberately, recklessly, or with gross negligence; mere negligence doesn’t justify suppression.

What did Davis v. United States (2011) add to Good Faith doctrine?

Officers who rely on binding appellate precedent later overturned are acting in good faith → no exclusion.

📝 Exam tip: “Good faith reliance on then-valid law” is safe from exclusion.

When is the Knock-and-Announce rule violation not grounds for exclusion?

Hudson v. Michigan (2006) — ER doesn’t apply; exclusion’s deterrent value is minimal compared to costs.

The interests (safety, property, dignity) are protected by other means

Exclusionary Rule outside Criminal Context

“The Supreme Court has not applied the exclusionary rule outside the criminal trial context.”

US v. Calandra—> A grand jury witness can’t refuse questions because EVI from previous illegal search

Penn Board of Prob v. Scott —> ER not extended to parole board hearings

US v. Janis  —> ER does not apply in civil proceedings

INS v. Lopez-Mendoza  —> ER doe snot apply in civil deportation hearings

Limits of ER at Criminal Trials

Good Faith Culpability (SEE: Leon/Krull/Evans/Herring/Davis)

Knock and Announce (SEE: Hudson)

Violation of Regulations (SEE: Caceres)(IRS Case)

Private Searches (SEE: US v. Jacobsen) (FedEx Case)

Other Limits of ER

RE: “Standing Doctrine”

—> Generally, standing means you have a reasonable expectation of privacy

Cannot move to suppress under ER, unless you have standing to do so. 

Ex. —> If LEO illegally gets EVI from friend’s house against you, you do not have standing to suppress the EVI.

YOU MUST BE VICTIM OF ILLEGAL SEARCH

RE: “Impeachment Exception”

—> “Gov may use illegally seized EVI to attack credibility of D”

What are the three traditional Fruit of the Poisonous Tree exceptions?

1. Independent Source — evidence also obtained from an independent lawful source.

2. Inevitable Discovery — evidence would have been found lawfully anyway.

3. Attenuation — connection between illegal act and evidence is too remote.

Which criminal procedure model supports the Exclusionary Rule and which opposes it?

• Due Process Model: Supports exclusion (protection of individual rights).

• Crime Control Model: Opposes exclusion (efficiency and deterrence of crime prioritized).

What are the two main policy criticisms of the Exclusionary Rule?

1. It lets guilty defendants go free due to police mistakes.

2. It’s indirect and may not effectively deter misconduct (too remote from the officer’s decision-making).

What are policy arguments in defense of the Rule?

• Promotes professional policing and training.

• Upholds the integrity of the judiciary.

• Provides systemic deterrence, not just individual punishment.

• Encourages warrants and procedural compliance.

When ER Applies (EVI Suppressed)

1. In general, if the benefits in deterrence outweigh rule’s substantial costs (Hudson)

2. Appreciable deterrence/Benefits outweigh cost of suppression/LEO conduct culpable that such deterrence worth price paid by justice system (Herring)

3. If LE employee clerical error (Herring)

4. If during legal search, police participated in conduct that “shocks the conscious” in manner that violates Due Process (Rochin)

When ER Does Not Apply (EVI Not Suppressed)

1. When an officer is reasonably relying on a judge’s warrant, and the warrant is not clearly illegal (Leon/Krull/Evans/Herring/Davis)

2. When officers are reasonably relying on an unconstitutional statute (Krull)

3. When officers are reasonably relying on a court employee’s error (Evans)

4. When an officer violates the knock-and-announce rule (Hudson)

5. If there is mere negligence on behalf of a LE employee who is faultily upkeeping database (Herring)