Crim Proc Foundations 8 - The Exclusionary Rule

The Exclusionary Rule prevents the government from using evidence obtained in violation of the Constitution.
It is a judicially created remedy, not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution.
The rationale is to disincentivize the government from violating constitutional rights by ensuring they cannot use illegally obtained evidence.

Extends the exclusionary rule to evidence derived from unconstitutionally obtained evidence.
Evidence obtained as a result of the original illegality is also inadmissible.
Example:
- Officer unlawfully enters Bonnie's home and finds a map indicating the location of stolen money. The money is found based on the map. The map was obtained during the unlawful entry, therefore the money is a fruit of the unlawful entry and will be suppressed. This applies even if the money was found in a public place.
Standing:
- The defendant can only raise a violation of their own constitutional rights, not someone else's.

Confessions obtained without Miranda warnings cannot be used to prove guilt in court.
Exception: un-Mirandized statements can be used to impeach the defendant's testimony if they take the stand and contradict their earlier confession, as long as no other unconstitutional compulsion was used.

Evidence obtained from a source independent of the original illegality is admissible.
Example:
- Bonnie is interrogated without Miranda warnings and confesses to carjacking. Clyde independently tells the police where the car is located. The car and fingerprints can be used as evidence against Bonnie because they were obtained from an independent source (Clyde's information).

Evidence is admissible if the prosecution can prove that the police would have inevitably discovered it through legal means.
Example:
- Bonnie confesses to a carjacking without Miranda warnings. Police were already tracking the car through the owner's tracking software and were headed to the impound lot where the car was. The car and fingerprints are admissible because the police would have found them anyway through the tracking software.

Violation of the knock and announce rule (when executing a search warrant) does not automatically lead to the exclusion of evidence.
The Supreme Court has decided that in this specific situation the evidence will not be excluded.
This could be considered a special application of the inevitable discovery rule because the police had a warrant and would have eventually entered the premises anyway.

Evidence is admissible if the connection between the unconstitutional conduct and the evidence is too remote or an intervening circumstance breaks the causal chain.
Factors considered:
- Temporal proximity: The closer in time between the misconduct and the discovery, the less likely the exception applies.
- Intervening circumstances.
- Purpose and flagrancy of the police misconduct.
Intervening act of free will:
- An intervening act of free will by a defendant will break the causal chain between police misconduct and the evidence.
- Example: Shane is unlawfully arrested, released, and then returns on his own and voluntarily confesses to a crime; the confession is likely admissible.

The exclusionary rule does not apply if the police acted in good faith reliance on a warrant or law that later turns out to be invalid.
Example:
- Arrest based on a database error showing an active warrant; drugs found during the arrest are admissible.
Exceptions to the good faith exception:
- The warrant is so defective that no reasonable officer would rely on it (e.g., lacks specificity).
- The officer who applied for the warrant lied or misled the magistrate.

Generally, live witness testimony is not excluded, even if discovered through police misconduct.
The court often assumes the witness would have come forward anyway.

An in-court identification of the defendant is generally admissible, even if the witness previously identified the defendant at the police station after an unconstitutional arrest.
This is allowed as long as the witness has a basis for identifying the defendant independent of the illegal jailhouse ID.

Evidence of an unduly suggestive out-of-court identification is generally not excluded unless the suggestive circumstances were arranged by the police.
Example:
- Police talk to robbery victim. Police thinks robber is likely from a local gang that hangs out at a local street corner. Police takes victim for a ride past that street corner and asks if any of them robber her. A robbery victim identifies the suspect among three people at a street corner shortly after the crime.
- The identification may be unduly suggestive, but it is likely admissible because the police did not arrange the circumstances.

Grand jury proceedings (unless federal wiretapping statute was violated).
Civil proceedings.
Parole revocation hearings.
Violations of state law (the exclusionary rule is to deter violations of constitutional rights, not state laws or agency rules).

If unconstitutionally obtained evidence is admitted at trial, the conviction will be upheld if the conviction would have resulted despite the improper evidence.
On appeal, the government has the burden of showing beyond a reasonable doubt that the admission of the illegally seized evidence was harmless.