CLASS NO. 7 (3)

Class No. 7: Exclusionary Rule Standing

Exclusionary Rule Overview

  • Definition: A judicially created rule that states material obtained in violation of the Constitution cannot be introduced at trial against a criminal defendant.

  • Controversial Nature: It allows defendants who may be guilty to go free due to police errors.

  • Impact: It affects approximately 65,000 defendants each year.

Current Status of the Exclusionary Rule

  • Key Case: Hudson v. Michigan (2006)

    • Established that the rule generates substantial social costs without serving as an effective deterrent.

    • Argues that improved police professionalism mitigates the need for the exclusionary rule.

Arguments for and Against the Exclusionary Rule

  • In Favor:

    • Deters bad police behavior.

    • Protects judicial integrity.

    • Other methods are less effective.

    • Forms part of American legal tradition.

  • Against:

    • Evidence suggests it isn't a real deterrent.

    • Lacks clear statistics on its deterrent effect.

    • The rule can benefit those who flaunt the law.

    • Alternatives to penalizing police misconduct exist.

    • Some argue it's unnecessary due to police improvements.

Historical Timeline of the Exclusionary Rule

  • Weeks v. U.S. (1914): First adoption of the federal exclusionary rule.

  • Wolf v. Colorado (1949): Excluded it for states.

  • Mapp v. Ohio (1961): Reinstated the exclusionary rule for states.

Key Cases and Reactions to Mapp

  • Mapp v. Ohio (1961):

    • Broadened the application of the exclusionary rule to states, intended to deter the 'silver platter' doctrine.

  • Reactions:

    • Police saw an increase in warrant applications post-Mapp.

    • Significant changes in law enforcement practices were noted.

Standing to Challenge Searches

  • Key Cases:

    • Jones v. U.S. (1960): Established that an aggrieved person can challenge a violation if they were legitimately in possession of property.

    • Rakas v. Illinois (1978): Defined expectation of privacy for challenges.

    • Rawlings v. Kentucky (1980): Determined that a defendant can't claim the exclusionary rule for contraband not belonging to them.

    • Brendlin v. California (2007): Affirmed that passengers can contest searches of vehicles they occupy.

Exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule

  • Categories:

    • Independent Source Doctrine: Evidence obtained from independent, lawful sources is admissible.

    • Inevitable Discovery Rule: Evidence that would have been found legally regardless of the illegal action.

    • Attenuation Doctrine: Evidence that results from a violation but not directly linked to it may be admissible.

    • Good Faith Exception: Evidence obtained by police who acted on a valid warrant is also admissible.

Key Cases Relating to Exceptions

  • Herring v. U.S. (2009): No exclusionary application for clerical errors unless there are deliberate or reckless violations.

  • Davis v. United States (2011): Good faith applies if prior appellate law was established.

  • Utah v. Strieff (2016): Evidence found can be admissible if intervening circumstances dissipated the relationship between the illegal action and the evidence.

Impeachment and the Exclusionary Rule

  • Application: Illegally obtained evidence may still be used for impeachment in court, but not in the prosecution's primary case.

Civil Remedies Under Exclusionary Rule

  • Potential for Lawsuits:

    • Injunctive relief and money damages can be pursued under civil rights claims under Section 1983 if police misconduct is proven.

    • Qualified immunity limits liability for police officers unless they violate clearly established law.

Conclusion

  • The exclusionary rule serves as a significant check on police misconduct, but it continues to be debated as to its effectiveness and necessity in modern law enforcement.