Chapter 2- Remedy

Exclusionary Rule (Overview)

A Supreme Court-created doctrine that prevents evidence obtained in violation of the Constitution from being used in a criminal trial to prove guilt.

Creation and Incorporation (Overview)

Created in 1914 and incorporated to the states in 1961 through Mapp v. Ohio.

Amendments Protected (Overview)

The Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments.

Purpose of Exclusionary Rule (Overview)

Ensures evidence obtained through unconstitutional actions is excluded from trial.

Significance (Overview)

The most important remedy in criminal procedure for unlawful searches, seizures, or interrogations.

Deterrence of Police Misconduct (Pros)

Encourages police to act lawfully and follow due process.

Why Other Remedies Fail (Pros)

Other remedies are often slow, time-consuming, costly, and come too late to protect defendants’ rights.

Constitutional Criticism (Cons)

The rule is a judicial creation, not explicitly found in the Constitution.

Who Should Handle Misconduct (Cons)

Critics argue states should address police misconduct through discipline, not evidence exclusion.

Main Drawback (Cons)

The rule can allow guilty individuals to go free due to minor police mistakes.

Effect on Innocent People (Cons)

Innocent people are rarely affected because they have nothing to be seized.

Good Faith Exception (Exception)

Evidence is admissible if police acted honestly and with probable cause, even if the warrant was defective.

Honest Mistake Principle (Exception)

The key issue is whether the police made an honest mistake during the search or seizure.

Case Example – Good Faith (Exception)

Mapp v. Ohio (1961) — helped establish the rule’s incorporation to the states.

Impeachment Exception (Exception)

Illegally obtained evidence may be used to challenge the defendant’s credibility, not to prove guilt.

Use Limitation – Impeachment (Exception)

Such evidence cannot be used to convict, only to impeach the defendant’s testimony.

Case Example – Impeachment (Exception)

Walder v. United States (1954) — established the impeachment exception.

Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine (Doctrine)

Evidence derived from an illegal search or seizure is inadmissible in court.

Examples of Excluded Evidence (Doctrine)

Coerced confessions or evidence obtained after arrests without probable cause.

Examples of Admissible Evidence (Doctrine)

Voluntary confessions without Miranda warnings (United States v. Bayer, 1947; Michigan v. Tucker).

Purged Taint Exception (Doctrine Exception)

Evidence is admissible if the connection to the unconstitutional act is so attenuated that it no longer carries the taint.

Voluntariness Question (Doctrine Exception)

Courts ask whether the defendant’s statements were voluntary before admitting them.

Independent Source Exception (Doctrine Exception)

Evidence is admissible if obtained independently of the illegal act (e.g., a valid warrant later obtained through separate information).

Inevitable Discovery Exception (Doctrine Exception)

Evidence is admissible if it would have been found anyway, regardless of unconstitutional conduct.

Relationship to Independent Source (Doctrine Exception)

Both rely on the idea that evidence would have been legally discovered eventually.