Chapter 10: The Exclusionary Rule

Flashcards covering key vocabulary, cases, and principles related to the Exclusionary Rule, its history, justifications, and exceptions, based on the provided lecture notes.

EXCLUSIONARY RULE

Illegally obtained evidence may not be used against a defendant.

Exclusionary Rule (Function)

Banning the introduction of "good" evidence obtained by "bad" law enforcement.

New School (Exclusionary Rule Rationale)

Focuses on the social cost, viewing setting the guilty free as an accepted price for long-range deterrence against police violations and a commitment to fairness in the CJ system.

Old School (Exclusionary Rule Critique)

Opposes exclusion, arguing that 'the culprit goes free because the constable blundered.'

"Bad Methods" (Law Enforcement)

Violations of the 4th, 5th, or 6th Amendments related to search and seizure, incriminating statements, right to counsel, or due process in identification.

Fourth Amendment (S&S)

Constitutional amendment protecting against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Fifth Amendment (Self-Incrimination)

Constitutional amendment protecting against incriminating statements.

Sixth Amendment (Right to Counsel)

Constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right to counsel.

Fifth/Fourteenth Amendment (Due Process ID)

Constitutional amendments guaranteeing the right of due process in identification procedures.

James Madison (Judicial Remedies)

Believed the Constitution didn't specify remedies because judges would create appropriate ones based on specific circumstances.

Impenetrable Bulwark (Judiciary)

A term used by James Madison to describe how independent tribunals of justice act as guardians of rights, resisting encroachments.

U.S. v. Boyd (1886)

A Supreme Court case that suggested banning illegally obtained evidence, but this idea was not adopted for 27 years.

Weeks v. United States (1914)

The Supreme Court case that created the exclusionary rule, ruling that allowing the government to use privately seized papers violated 4th Amendment rights.

Weeks Rule (Application)

The exclusionary rule established in Weeks v. United States initially applied only to federal law enforcement, allowing states to fashion their own remedies.

Wolf v. Colorado (1949 - 14th Amendment)

Supreme Court case ruling that the 14th Amendment due process clause applies the right against unreasonable searches & seizures to the states.

Wolf v. Colorado (1949 - Exclusionary Rule)

Supreme Court case ruling that the exclusionary rule itself was not part of the 4th Amendment right, leaving it up to states how to enforce the ban on unreasonable S&S.

Mapp v. Ohio (1961)

Supreme Court case that applied the exclusionary rule to the states, holding that suppression of evidence is essential as a remedy to deter police misconduct and uphold constitutional guarantees.

Deterrence (Exclusionary Rule Justification)

Justification for the exclusionary rule aimed at preventing deliberate, reckless, or grossly negligent conduct by law enforcement.

Constitutional Rights (Exclusionary Rule Justification)

Justification based on the principle that due process requires a remedy, upholding the idea of 'no right without a remedy'.

Judicial Integrity (Exclusionary Rule Justification)

Justification for the rule to preserve the legal process, arguing that government lawbreaking breeds contempt for the law.

GOOD FAITH EXCEPTION

An exception to the exclusionary rule where evidence is admissible if officers acted in reasonable reliance on a search or arrest warrant later found to be invalid.

United States v. Leon (1984)

The Supreme Court case that established the federal good faith exception to the exclusionary rule.

State v. Novembrino (NJ, 1987)

A New Jersey Supreme Court ruling stating that evidence obtained using the federal good faith standard is inadmissible in NJ state courts, based on the State Constitution.

FRUIT OF THE POISONOUS TREE DOCTRINE

Bans not only illegally obtained evidence but also any additional evidence derived from it, based on the principle that the government shouldn't benefit from breaking the law.

ATTENUATION DOCTRINE

An exception to the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree, where the connection between the illegal conduct and the evidence is weak, determined by the 'totality of the circumstances' (Wong Sun).

Wong Sun v. United States (1963)

Supreme Court case establishing the attenuation doctrine as an exception to the fruit of the poisonous tree rule.

INDEPENDENT SOURCE DOCTRINE

An exception to the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree, where evidence is admissible if law-breaking did not result in its seizure and it was obtained through a separate, legal source (Moscatiello).

Moscatiello (1985)

Case cited in the notes related to the independent source doctrine as an exception to the exclusionary rule.

INEVITABLE DISCOVERY DOCTRINE

An exception to the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree, where illegally seized evidence is admissible if the government can show they would have found it anyway through lawful means (Nix v. Williams).

Nix v. Williams (1984)

Supreme Court case that established the inevitable discovery doctrine as an exception to the exclusionary rule.

Herring v. United States (2009)

Supreme Court case further cementing the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule, often applied to clerical errors in warrant databases.

KNOCK AND ANNOUNCE RULE (Exclusionary Impact)

A rule requiring officers to announce their presence and purpose before entering a home, though violations of this rule do not generally trigger the exclusion of evidence.

Hudson v. Michigan (2006)

Supreme Court case that ruled the exclusionary rule does not apply to evidence seized during a search if officers violate the knock-and-announce rule.

COLLATERAL USE EXCEPTION

An exception to the exclusionary rule where illegally obtained evidence can be used in proceedings such as bail hearings, grand jury, and preliminary hearings.

Walder v. U.S. (1954)

Supreme Court case that ruled it is permissible to use illegally obtained evidence to impeach the defendant's credibility during cross-examination, but not in the case-in-chief.