Criminal Procedure: Basic Fourth Amendment Principles & The Exclusionary Rule
Basic Fourth Amendment Principles and the Exclusionary Rule
Introduction to Remedies for Fourth Amendment Violations
Importance of Observing the Law:
Justice Brandeis in Olmstead v. United States, , stated: "In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperilled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously."
He further elaborated: "If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy."
Primary Remedy for Fourth Amendment Violations:
When a state or federal government violates the Fourth Amendment, the remedy for a defendant is the exclusion of illegally obtained evidence from use in court.
This exclusion places the parties in the same legal position they occupied prior to the illegal seizure of evidence.
Violation of the Fourth Amendment and the Exclusion of Evidence
General Rule: Illegally seized evidence is generally not to be used to prove guilt in a criminal trial.
Impact: While a crucial remedy, it helps the guilty by preventing the use of evidence against them, but it does not directly assist the innocent.
Implementation of the Fourth Amendment Prior to
Before , illegally seized evidence was rarely excluded from federal trials.
Weeks v. United States, : The Supreme Court constructed the exclusionary rule, legally prohibiting the admission of illegally obtained evidence in federal courts.
The Exclusionary Rule: Enforcing the Fourth Amendment
Weeks v. United States Case Details:
United States marshals illegally entered the defendant's residence without warrants on two occasions, seizing evidence.
The Weeks Court held that this evidence should not have been introduced at his trial.
Post-Weeks Impact: The ruling established that illegally seized evidence must be excluded from federal criminal trials.
Enforcement Mechanism: The Weeks exclusionary rule enforced the Fourth Amendment by removing federal police incentives to violate its provisions.
Suppression of Illegally Seized Evidence
Effect of the Rule: It aims to place the parties in the same position they would have been in had the Fourth Amendment never been violated.
Procedure: Upon an allegation of a Fourth Amendment violation, the court holds an adversarial hearing (often pretrial) to determine whether to suppress or admit the contested evidence. Both sides present evidence to the judge.
Theoretical and Constitutional Basis for the Exclusionary Rule
Underlying Philosophy:
Permitting the use of illegally seized evidence would imply judicial support or condonation of illegality.
Courts would become indirect participants in Fourth Amendment violations.
Cannot Undo the Wrong: While the rule cannot undo the constitutional wrong, it eliminates police incentives to violate a person's rights by limiting the utility of illegally seized evidence.
Deterrence: The primary goal of the exclusionary rule is to deter future law enforcement violations of the Fourth Amendment.
Challenge to the Exclusionary Rule: The Silver Platter Doctrine
Initial Limitation: The Weeks exclusionary rule initially applied only to federal courts and police, not to state courts or police (prior to Mapp v. Ohio, ).
Silver Platter Doctrine: This doctrine historically allowed evidence illegally seized by federal officials to be admissible in state courts, and conversely, evidence illegally seized by state officials to be admissible in federal courts.
Rationale: The argument was that the federal police and courts had not themselves violated the Constitution when receiving state-seized evidence, and vice-versa.
Elkins v. United States, : This case abolished part of the Silver Platter Doctrine, ruling that evidence obtained illegally by state police must be excluded from federal court admission.
Application of the Exclusionary Rule to State Criminal Procedure
Mapp v. Ohio, : This landmark decision mandated that state courts cannot allow the use of illegally seized evidence.
Incorporation Doctrine: It clearly incorporated the Fourth Amendment's guarantees into the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause, thereby making Fourth Amendment protections (including the exclusionary rule) applicable to defendants in state prosecutions.
Case : Leading Case Brief: Mapp v. Ohio,
Facts: Police broke into a defendant's home without a warrant. Evidence found was used against her in state court. She contended the Fourth Amendment protected her from illegal search.
Issue: Should the Fourth Amendment and the exclusionary rule apply to states?
Held: Yes.
Rationale: Due process requires fundamental fairness. The Court found that the right of privacy should be enforceable against state action. The right is the same in state as for federal courts, so the exclusionary rule should apply to keep illegally seized evidence from state court admission.
Exclusion of Derivative Evidence
"Fruit of the Poisonous Tree" Doctrine: This doctrine dictates that derivative evidence obtained by exploiting a Fourth Amendment violation is also excluded, especially when offered against the individual whose rights were violated.
Wong Sun v. United States, : This case extended the exclusionary rule to derivative evidence, for instance, by excluding evidence found in a second person's home when the initial search that led to it was illegal.
An illegal search "poisons" downstream evidence related to the initial search.
Case : Leading Case Brief: Wong Sun v. United States,
Facts: An illegal search led to derivative evidence found at a third party's home, which was then used against the defendant. The defendant argued this evidence was tainted and should have been suppressed.
Issue: Should derivative evidence be suppressed when illegality revealed the evidence?
Held: Yes.
Rationale: Using derivative evidence obtained through a personal Fourth Amendment violation should be suppressed because the original illegality revealed the later evidence that would not have been discovered "but for" the illegality.
Major Exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule
The Supreme Court has identified three major exceptions to the exclusionary rule:
The independent source rule.
The rule of inevitable discovery.
The doctrine of attenuation.
Underlying Principle for Exceptions: The Supreme Court indicated that where the deterrent effect of the exclusionary rule on police was marginal or non-existent, the rationale of the rule was not supported. In such circumstances, the rule should not be applied to exclude evidence.
These exceptions allow illegally seized evidence to be admitted into criminal prosecutions.
Exclusionary Rule Exception: The Independent Source Rule
Admissibility: Illegally seized evidence is admissible if an alternative or parallel method of lawful discovery exists. Essentially, the evidence is admissible if it originated from a lawful and untainted source.
Example: Police have probable cause for a search. To confirm the presence of seizable evidence, they illegally break into a house. However, in subsequently obtaining a valid warrant, the police do not use any evidence from their illegal break-in. Instead, other non-tainted evidence supports the probable cause. The warrant is considered valid because its probable cause has an independent source, rendering the discovered evidence admissible.
Exclusionary Rule Exception: The Rule of Inevitable Discovery
Admissibility: Even if police find evidence through illegal means, thus violating the Fourth Amendment, that evidence is admissible if a separate and legal means of discovery would have inevitably led to its discovery. This prevents the government from being in a worse position than if no illegal search had occurred.
Example: Police conduct a warrantless and illegal search of a suspect's home, discovering evidence of where a homicide victim is hidden and quickly locating the victim. Simultaneously, another unit of police is systematically searching a targeted land area using a grid system and would have found the body hours later. Despite the initial illegal discovery, the evidence of the dead body should be admitted due to inevitable discovery.
Exclusionary Rule Exception: The Doctrine of Attenuation
Admissibility: Illegally seized evidence becomes admissible if it is sufficiently separated by time, distance, and/or intervening events from the initial illegal seizure. This means the illegal discovery of evidence is not clearly linked to the newly obtained evidence.
Example: An illegal seizure prompts an immediate, excludable confession. Weeks later, the subject offers another confession, this time to make a plea deal with the police. This second confession, though related to the first, is usually admissible because it is considered sufficiently separated from the original illegality. The passage of time and the independent act of free will (the plea deal) are seen as having "purged" the original "poison."
Exclusionary Rule Exception: The Good Faith Exception
Applicability: This exception applies where police make a good-faith error or mistake. The conduct must not be the fault of the police or must be an understandable error where applying the exclusionary rule would not have changed police behavior.
Example: Police apply for a warrant, and a judge issues it based on some outdated information combined with other valid information. Although the probable cause for the warrant might technically be stale, the police could not be expected to nuance this issue since the judge made the error. If a search pursuant to this defective warrant produces evidence, that evidence may be admissible under the good faith exception.
Limitations on the Exclusionary Rule: Parole Revocation Hearings
No Application: The exclusionary rule generally does not apply to parole revocation hearings because these hearings are not completely adversarial in nature.
Rationale: Applying the rule in this context would produce minimal deterrence on law enforcement conduct, and the social costs of excluding reliable evidence would outweigh the benefits (*Pennsylvania v. Scott, ).
Limitations on the Exclusionary Rule: Other Contexts
Justice O'Connor's Explanation (Duckworth v. Eagan, ): "Where the rule's deterrent effect is likely to be marginal, or where its application offends other values central to our system of constitutional governance or the judicial process, we have declined to extend the rule…"
Specific Limitations:
No vicarious assertion of the exclusionary rule (i.e., one cannot assert the violation of another's rights).
No application where police relied on a law that was later declared unconstitutional.
No application where illegally-seized evidence is used solely to impeach the defendant or a witness (to challenge their credibility).
No application to judicial errors (e.g., a mistake made by a judge, not law enforcement).
Alternative Remedies to Fourth Amendment Violations: The Bivens Civil Suit
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, :
The exclusionary rule offers no remedy for a person who was a victim of an outrageous illegal search but was never tried.
A Bivens suit provides a remedy for outrageous federal police conduct during a search or seizure.
It allows federal agents to be subjected to civil damage suits for their personal conduct based on constitutional violations.
Limits to Use of the Exclusionary Rule: The Concept of Standing
Requirement: Standing mandates that a party must have personally had their Fourth Amendment rights violated by police to attempt suppression of evidence.
Examples of Personal Violation: This includes illegal searches or arrests involving:
A victim's house, car, or personal property.
An aggrieved person's telephone, computer, cloud storage, Fitbit®, or other digital device.
Threshold Issue: Standing is a threshold issue that must be determined in the defendant's favor to permit suppression arguments. It exists where the evidence to be admitted came from a place where the defendant has an expectation of privacy, only then can litigation proceed for suppression of evidence.
Case : Leading Case Brief: Rakas v. Illinois,
Facts: Police arrested Rakas in another person's car and seized evidence. The court denied him the chance to argue suppression because he did not own or lease the car and made no claim of personal right violation regarding the car or its contents.
Issue: If a defendant has no claim to a vehicle or property within it, does he have standing to contest the search?
Held: No.
Rationale: To have standing to argue suppression of evidence, the defendant must make a personal claim of a violation of their rights. In this case, the defendant had no ownership of the car and made no claim of ownership or possession of its contents. The conviction was affirmed.
Slight Expansion of Standing: Brendlin v. California, :
A defendant passenger was granted standing to contest the stop of a vehicle.
Theory: When police stop a driver in a car, passengers are also considered "seized" under the Fourth Amendment. Therefore, Brendlin could argue he was illegally seized, and if proven, could seek to suppress evidence resulting from that seizure.
Vicarious Standing Not Permitted
General Rule: Standing to suppress evidence requires a personal Fourth Amendment violation.
Examples with Standing: A legitimate occupier of an apartment generally has standing.
Examples without Standing: Individuals briefly using another person's apartment merely to prepare drugs for sale, or occupants of a stolen car, or a burglar inside another's house/structure typically do not have standing.
Summary
Violation of personal Fourth Amendment rights may lead to an attempt to suppress evidence.
The Exclusionary Rule serves as a crucial mechanism to help enforce the Fourth Amendment.
Exceptions to the exclusionary rule exist in circumstances where suppression would not effectively help enforce the Fourth Amendment's objectives, such as situations where police acted in good faith or the evidence would have been discovered inevitably.
The Fourth Amendment's primary remedy for violations is the exclusion of illegally obtained evidence from court. As Justice Brandeis highlighted, government adherence to the law is crucial to prevent anarchy. The exclusionary rule prevents the use of such evidence to prove guilt. Prior to , this was rare, but Weeks v. United States () established it for federal courts, aiming to deter federal police misconduct. The rule seeks to place parties in the original legal position before the violation; suppression hearings are held to determine evidence admissibility.
Its theoretical basis is to prevent judicial condonation of illegality. The rule's main goal is to deter future Fourth Amendment violations by law enforcement. Initially, the Weeks rule only applied federally, leading to the Silver Platter Doctrine where evidence illegally seized by state officials could be used in federal courts and vice-versa. Elkins v. United States () abolished this doctrine.
Incorporation of the Fourth Amendment to the states occurred with Mapp v. Ohio (), mandating that state courts exclude illegally seized evidence, applying Fourth Amendment protections to state prosecutions. The "Fruit of the Poisonous Tree" doctrine from Wong Sun v. United States () extends exclusion to derivative evidence obtained by exploiting an initial Fourth Amendment violation.
Major exceptions to the exclusionary rule exist where its deterrent effect is marginal or non-existent:
Independent Source Rule: Evidence is admissible if discovered via a lawful, untainted parallel method.
Rule of Inevitable Discovery: Evidence found illegally is admissible if it would have inevitably been discovered through legal means.
Doctrine of Attenuation: Illegally seized evidence becomes admissible if sufficiently separated by time, distance, or intervening events from the initial illegality.
Good Faith Exception: Applies when police make an understandable error, such as relying on a technically defective warrant issued by a judge, where applying the rule would not change police behavior.
The exclusionary rule has limitations; it generally does not apply to parole revocation hearings, vicarious assertions (i.e., one cannot assert the violation of another's rights), cases where police relied on a law later declared unconstitutional, evidence used solely for impeachment, or judicial errors.
An alternative remedy is a Bivens civil suit, which allows federal agents to be sued for civil damages due to constitutional violations when the exclusionary rule offers no specific remedy. Finally, standing is a crucial concept, requiring a party to have personally had their Fourth Amendment rights violated to attempt to suppress evidence. Rakas v. Illinois () clarified this, while Brendlin v. California () expanded standing to passengers in illegally stopped vehicles; vicarious standing is not permitted.