Exclusionary Rule

Exclusionary Rule generally

Evidence that is obtained via a violation of a defendant’s fourth, fifth, or sixth amendment rights is not admissible. Evidence that is the fruit of the poisonous tree of those violations must also be excluded unless the costs of excluding the evidence outweigh the deterrent effect exclusion would have on police misconduct.

Exceptions to the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine

(1) fruits derived from statement obtained in violation of Miranda; (2) evidence obtained from a source independent of the original illegality; (3) evidence that is sufficiently attenuated from the misconduct; (4) intervening acts of free will on the part of the defendant; (5) evidence that the police would have inevitably discovered regardless of misconduct; and (6) violations of the knock and announce rule.

Exclusionary Rule Live Witness testimony

It is very difficult to exclude live witness testimony on exclusionary rule grounds

In-Court IDs

A defendant may not exclude a witness’s in-court ID on the ground that it is the fruit of an unlawful detention

Out-of-court IDs

Unduly suggestive out-of-court IDs that create a substantial likelihood of misidentification can violate the DPC. Judged case-by-case considering the totality of the circumstances. However, the Court will not consider applying the exclusionary rule unless the unduly suggestive circumstances were arranged by the police

Limitations: Exclusionary Rule not Applicable

The exclusionary rule is inapplicable to grand juries unless the evidence was obtained in violation of the federal wiretapping statute. The rule is also inapplicable at: (1) parole revocation proceedings; (2) civil proceedings; or (3) where evidence was obtained contrary only to state law or agency rules

Good Faith Reliance Exception

The exclusionary rule does not apply when the police are acting in good faith pursuant to an arrest warrant, search warrant, or law. There are four exceptions: (1) The affidavit underlying the warrant was so lacking in PC that no reasonable officer would have relied on it; (2) the affidavit is so lacking in particularity that no reasonable officer would have relied on it; (3) the police or the prosecutor lied to or misled the magistrate when seeking the warrant; and (4) the magistrate is biased and therefore has wholly abandoned their neutrality

Impeachment Purposes

Some illegally obtained evidence may still be used to impeach the defendant’s credibility if they take the stand at trial. An otherwise voluntary confession taken in violation of Miranda is admissible for this purpose, and evidence obtained from an illegal search may be used to impeach the defendant’s statements.

Harmless Error Test Exclusionary Rule

If illegal evidence is admitted, a resulting conviction should be overturned on appeal unless the government can show beyond a reasonable doubt that the error was harmless. The conviction will be upheld if it would have resulted despite the improper evidence. In a habeas proceeding, the petitioner should be released if they can show that the error had a substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict.

Enforcing the Exclusionary Rule

A defendant is entitled to have the admissibility of evidence or a confession decided as a matter of law by a judge outside the hearing of the jury. The government bears the burden of establishing the admissibility by a preponderance of the evidence. The defendant has the right to testify at the suppression hearing without their testimony being admitted against them at trial on the issue of guilt.