Remedies for Fourth Amendment Violations

Standing

In order to qualify as a 'person aggrieved by an unlawful search or seizure' one must have been a victim of a search or seizure, one against whom the search was directed. Fourth Amendment rights must not be vicariously asserted.

e.g Rakas v. Illinois

Rakas v. Illinois Facts

• Police stop the suspected getaway car with the owner and other passengers

• Search revealed contraband

• Passengers stated they did not own the car or contraband

• Petitioners convicted using contraband as evidence

• Tried to suppress contraband as evidence claiming Fourth Amendment violations, but denied motion citing lack of standing

Rakas v. Illinois Outcome

Since the passengers did not assert a property interest in the automobile or property seized, and failed to demonstrate a legitimate expectation of privacy in any compartment, they cannot challenge a search of those areas. The passengers lacked standing.

Rakas v. Illinois was important in establishing…

Standing, Fourth Amendment rights are personal and cannot be vicariously established on behalf of someone else.

Who is the burden on to prove that a suspect has standing?

The defense

What did Byrd v. United States establish?

Not being on the rental agreement of a car while having lawful possession or control of it does not beat reasonable expectation of privacy.

Minnesota v. Olsen Facts

• Olsen was a robbery-murder suspect staying at a friend’s residence as an overnight guest (important)

• Officers searched the residence without a warrant and found him hiding in a closet

Minnesota v. Olsen Outcome

The Court held that he did have standing to contest the warrantless search because he was an overnight guest.

Minnesota v. Olson established…

Overnight guest have a legitimate expectation of privacy — they have standing they can contest warrantless search and seizures

Minnesota v. Carter Facts

• Carter, Johns, and Thompson were arrested after a police officer observed them bagging cocaine in Thompson’s home

• Defendants moved to suppress the cocaine as evidence claiming the initial observation was an unreasonable search and seizure

• MN Court held that they were not protected by the Fourth Amendment

Minnesota v. Carter Outcome

The search did not violate the Fourth Amendment. They did not use the standing doctrine established in Rakas v. Illinois. Instead they reasoned that to claim Fourth Amendment protection, a defendant must demonstrate that he personally has an expectation of privacy in the place searched, and that his expectation is reasonable.

Minnesota v. Carter established…

Short-term visitors there for business reasons do not have Fourth Amendment expectation of privacy, and thus are not protected by it.

Rawlings v. Kentucky

• Police search home with an arrest warrant and find five other people in the home and discover marijuana

• Everyone in the house is seized and they come back with a search warrant

• Rawlings hid his drugs in the purse of a female suspect

• Police instruct a female suspect to empty her bag and more drugs fall out. She tells Rawlings to claim what’s his

Rawlings v. Kentucky Outcome

He cannot challenge the Fourth Amendment search because he had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the purse of another person. Rawlings had no relation to the female suspect (only met each other a few days prior), did not have access to her purse, and did nothing to conceal the items in her purse.

What is the Exclusionary Rule?

Evidence collected in violation of the Fourth Amendment, is inadmissible in criminal prosecution

What case applied the Exclusionary Rule to Federal Courts?

Weeks v. United States

Fruit of the Poisonous Tree for the Exclusionary Rule

In Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States the government tried to use copies of illegally obtained material to gained subpoenas for the original materials. The Court ruled that the government cannot use evidence that was gathered with the help of illegal information.

What case applied the Exclusionary Rule to the states?

Mapp v. Ohio

What are the three justifications for the Exclusionary Rule?

1. Constitutional Right - It is part of the constitutional rights against unreasonable seizure and coerced confessions

2. Judicial Integrity - preserves the honor and honesty of the courts

3. Deterrence - Deters police misconduct *the only one that still matters today

Collateral Use

An exception to the exclusionary rule

Illegally obtained evidence can be used at other hearings besides the main case

Impeachment/Cross Examiniation

An exception to the exclusionary rule.

Illegally obtained evidence can be used when trying to cross-examine or accuse someone of lying.

Independent Source

e.g. Murray v. United States

Agents entered a warehouse without a warrant and saw marijuana. They came back with a warrant but did not use any information from their illegal entry. The search warrant was valid because it was from an independent source.

Inevitable discovery

An exception to the exclusionary rule.

Illegally obtained evidence can be used if the evidence would have been found anyway. Must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence.

What is Nix v. Williams an example of?

Inevitable Discovery, an exception to the exclusionary rule.

Nix v. Williams — Information on where a body was located was obtained through a Miranda violation. A search party was already in the area and was very close to the body. The Court ruled that the body could be admitted because the search party would have inevitably discovered.

Attenuation

An exception to the exclusionary rule

Illegally obtained evidence can be admitted if the link between police misconduct and the discovery of the evidence is weak.

Wong Sun v. United States Facts

• Federal agents searched of Toy’s home without a warrant (1st illegal act). He told them that they could find drugs at Yee’s house.

• Police enter Yee’s house without a warrant (2nd illegal act) and he told them that Wong Sun was his supplier.

• Police arrested Wong Sun in his home.

• Wong Sun later voluntarily went to police and confessed to selling drugs to Yee.

Wong Sun v. United States Outcome

The statements by Yee and Toy were both Fruit of the Poisonous tree because they were obtained through illegal searches. However, the statement by Wong Sun was so attenuated that it was not the fruit of the unlawful arrest and could be admitted

What factors affect Attenuation?

• Length of time between initial illegality and the seizure of the fruit

• The flagrancy of the misconduct

• The existence or absence of intervening causes of the seizure of the fruit

• The prescence of of absence of an act of free will by the defendant resulting in the seizure of the fruit

Good Faith

An exception to the Fourth Amendment

Illegally obtained evidence can be admitted if police believe they were acting in good faith

Justifacations for the Good Faith exception

• There is no deterrent effect if police think they are obeying the Constitution

• The cost of the exclusionary rule is so high so it does not need to apply if it will not deter anyone

Limits to the Good Faith exception

• When officers are misleading or reckless with the truth

• The magistrate abandons their judicial role

• Facially deficient in the listing of things to be seized

• Little probable cause in affidavit that renders it unreasonable

Hudson v. Michigan Facts

• Police violated the knock and announce rule and discovered contraband in defendent’s home

Hudson v. Michigan Outcome

Knock and Announce rule is not required when there is a threat of physical violence, evidence may be destroyed, and suspects may be escaping.

The knock and announce rule was not designed to prevent police from coming but to allow residents to prepare themselves for police presence, avoid viokence, and prevent destruction of property. Excluding evidence furthers none of these interest.

The contraband is not suppressed.

How to interpret Hudson v. Michigan

• The knock-and-announce is not the but-for cause of finding evidence there is no violation. The police would have found the contraband either way (Inevitable discovery + Independent Source doctrine)

• Cost-benefit — use of the exclusionary rule will not provide enough deterrence to outweigh it’s cost

Herring v. United States Facts

• Herring pulled over and arrested due to an outstanding warrant.

• Search incident to arrest reveled contraband

• After arrest, it was discovered that the warrant was recalled and no longer valid.

• Police officer did not update this

Herring v. United States Outcome

When police mistakes are isolated attenuated negligence and not systemic error or reckless disregard of constitutional requirements, the exclusionary rule does not apply

Davis v. United States Facts

• Police conducted a warantless search of the passanger compartment using laws set out by Belton v. New York revealing a firearm

• The firearm was used in his indictment

• Right before his appeal was decided, the Supreme Court ruled on Arizona v. Gant, which made the search in this case unconstitutional

Davis v. United States Outcome

Penalizing the officers for following law that applied at the time would not deter Fourth Amendment violations. They refused to apply the exclusionary rule.