CJL 1130 Ch.6

Exclusionary Rule

Evidence obtained in violation of suspect’s constitutional rights is not admissible to prove guilt

The exclusionary rule applies to

Federal and state court proceedings

Provides incentive for law enforcement to respect rights

Tempting to violate rights if it leads to a conviction

Fruit of the poisonous tree is an

Exclusionary rule that applies to all evidence resulting from a constitutional violation

An example of the fruit of the poisonous tree is an address book seized during an illegal search

–Information in the address book itself is inadmissible (direct result of violation)

–Testimony obtained from people named in the book Is inadmissible (fruit of the poisonous tree)

–Computer files accessed using a password contained in the address book is inadmissible (fruit of the poisonous tree)

Exceptions to fruit of the poisonus tree doctrine are

-Independent source rule

-Inevitable discovery rule

-Collateral use rule

Independent source rule

Evidence obtained from two sources, one legal and one illegal, is admissible

Inevitable discovery rule

Evidence which would eventually have been obtained from another legal source is admissible

Collateral use rule

Illegally obtained evidence can be used for purposes other than to prove guilt

(e.g., at a preliminary hearing)

Fourth Amendment

The right of the people to be secure in their

persons, houses, papers, and effects, against

unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not

be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but

upon probable cause, supported by Oath or

affirmation, and particularly describing the place

to be searched, and the persons or things to be

seized

Two types of warrants

–Search warrant

–Arrest warrant

Requirements for warrant

–Probable cause supported by affidavit of police officer

–Presentation of affidavit to a magistrate

–Particularity (specificity)

The requirement for a warrant of particularity (specificity) is where

▪Search warrant must specify area to be searched and items or be seized

▪Arrest warrant must identify person to be arrested

Probable cause where an officer must articulate facts supporting a reasonable belief that

–Search warrant: evidence of a crime is located at place to be searched

–Arrest warrant: the person to be arrest is committing or has committed a crime

Probable cause can be based on

–Direct evidence (officer’s own observations)

–Hearsay evidence (statement by witness or victim)

Exceptions to requirement for probable cause for searches

-Non-search

-Frisks

-Consent

Non-search - no probable cause required

–“plain view” search: search of area in plain view of officer

–“open fields” search: search of unfenced property outside curtilage of home

Frisks – reasonable suspicion needed

–Terry v. Ohio: police may stop a suspect for a short time to investigate suspicious behavior

–During stop, police may pat down suspect’s outer clothing if suspect he/she is armed

Consent – no probable cause required

–Suspect may waive Fourth Amendment rights by consenting to search

–Consent must be voluntary (not result of coercion)

–Search must be within scope of consent

Search for evidence on probable cause – no warrant required

-Search incident arrest

-Vehicle search

-Container search

Search incident to arrest

–During lawful arrest officer may search defendant’s person and immediate vicinity

-To protect officer and preserve evidence of crime

Vehicle search

–Mobility justified warrantless search

Container search

–Container can be seized; warrant needed to open and search

Exceptions to requirement for probable cause for seizures

-Voluntary encounter

-Stop

Voluntary encounter – no probable cause required

–Person encountered by police must reasonably believe he/she is free to walk away

Stop

–Terry v. Ohio allows a temporary stop to investigatesuspicious activity

–Stop must be supported by facts showing that suspicion is reasonable

–Stop must be limited in duration

▪if no probable cause is found, suspect must be released

Arrests

Highest level of interference with freedom of movement

Arrest warrant required only if suspect is arrested in his/her home

–Warrant not needed where persons are in danger or evidence might be destroyed

Warrantless arrest must be supported at probable cause hearing

–Held soon after arrest

Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination

“No person… shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.”

Fifth Amendment protection Miranda V. Arizona

Arrested suspect must be made aware of right to remain silent and to counsel

Miranda V. Arizona have

–“bright line” test – warning must be given if suspect is interrogated while in custody

–Interrogation must stop if suspect indicates

▪He/she does not want to answer question

▪He/she wants attorney present during questioning