Exclusionary Rule

Walder v US

Fruit of the Poisonous Tree: "the Government cannot violate the Fourth Amendment... and use the fruits of such unlawful conduct to secure a conviction. Nor can the Government make indirect use of such evidence for its case, or support a conviction on evidence obtained through leads from the unlawfully obtained evidence."

Murray v US (1988)

admitting bales of marijuana as evidence obtained lawfully via search warrant even though police initially entered warehouse and saw bales because the warrant was a second, independent source) (Marshall, J, dissenting: the Court's holding undermines the deterrence incentive of the exclusionary rule and allows police to invade an individual's privacy before a neutral and detached magistrate determines that there is probable cause to do so. In addition, in cases like this one, there is no evidence, except the testimony of the agents, that the second entry pursuant to the search warrant is independent from the initial illegal entry, further widening the opportunity for police misconduct

Nix v Williams (1984)

finding that even though police violated defendant's sixth amendment right to counsel by interrogating him without his lawyer about the location of a missing girl's body (which he led them to), exclusionary rule does not apply because police would have inevitably found the body regardless based on the search currently underway - "within a short time" and in "essentially the same condition" even though search was temporarily called off after D agreed to cooperate). Note: based on this reasoning, b/c of the inevitable discovery, any bad faith on the part of the officer who conducted the interrogation was irrelevant.

Wong Sun v US (1963)

(finding that although arrest of defendant violated his Fourth Amendment rights, defendant's confession at the station house two days later was still admissible because the passage of time, coupled with his choice to provide incriminating testimonial and physical evidence voluntarily AFTER consulting with his lawyer and after he had been released from confinement, choosing to go to police station to confess, "purged the taint" of the unlawful arrest and justified the introduction of the confession an heroin against him.)

FOPT steps

4. Fruit of Poisonous Tree analytical steps:

a. Identify the "tree" (the constitutional violation - 4th, 5th or 6th A violation?) NOTE: In Fellers, SCOTUS punted on whether fruit analysis applies to 6th A.

b. Identify the "fruit" (the evidence the government seeks to introduce) (What does govt seek to introduce? E.g. First statements at house, then second the statements at jail house)

c. determine if "b" comes from "a" (is there a causal link?) (Is there a causal link between illegal obtaining of first statements and second statements? Yes. Officers were smart enough to realize John didn't know his rights. He didn't know)

d. If the fruit DID come from a poisonous tree, identify any facts that may justify the conclusion that the fruit no longer is poisoned (the "attenuation" or "dissipation" doctrine). (Was any causal link broken that dissipates the taint? E.g. Govt will say: yes we gave him a written Miranda form. So govt will say his second statements are an act of free will.)

Utah v. Strieff (2016)

(Finding exclusionary rule did not apply to meth found during unlawful stop without reasonable suspicion because there was an outstanding arrest warrant for traffic violation and 2/3 Brown factors favored the police)

US v Leon (1984)

(Upholding search and seizure of drugs based on defective warrant, reasoning that the "marginal or nonexistent benefits" of excluding reliable evidence were not justified where the police act in "objectively reasonable reliance" on a warrant issued by a magistrate)