Exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule

Exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule

Overview

  • The exclusionary rule prevents the use of evidence obtained through violations of the Fourth Amendment. However, there are exceptions to this rule.

US v. Leon (1984)

  • Key Principle: Evidence seized in "good faith" will be admitted in court even if the original search or seizure is deemed illegal due to a defective warrant.

Harris v. US (1968)

  • Plain View Doctrine: If law enforcement has the legal right to be present in a location, they may seize evidence that is in plain view without a warrant.

Arizona v. Hicks (1987)

  • Conditions for Plain View Doctrine:
    • Law enforcement must have a legal right to the location from where the object is visible.
    • Officers are not permitted to dislodge or move objects to establish a plain view.

Warden v. Hayden (1967)

  • Exigent Circumstances: No warrant is required if officers are faced with an emergency situation (exigent circumstances) that justifies immediate search.

Hudson v. Michigan (2006)

  • Knock and Announce Rule:
    • The requirement for police to knock, announce their presence, and wait a "reasonable" time before entering a residence is set aside but not abandoned.
    • The exclusionary rule does not apply to evidence obtained after a violation of this rule because the interests at stake do not relate to the seizure of evidence.

US v. Grubbs (2006)

  • Scope of Search Warrants:
    • Search warrants may be issued on probable cause that evidence will be present at a specific place when the warrant is executed, even if the evidence is not yet there at the time of the warrant issuance.

US v. Mendenhall (1980)

  • Free to Leave Test: Examination of whether there was a restraint on freedom of movement equivalent to that associated with an arrest.

Search Incident to Arrest

Terry v. Ohio (1968)

  • Stop and Frisk: Law enforcement may stop and frisk an individual based on "reasonable suspicion" rather than probable cause when the officer believes the person may be armed and dangerous.

Brown v. Texas (1971)

  • Key Finding: Police must have probable cause to suspect an individual when they require identification. A person cannot be punished for refusing to identify themselves if there was no suspicion against them.

Hibel v. Sixth Judicial Circuit Court of Nevada (2004)

  • Legal Obligation to Identify: If police have reasonable suspicion or probable cause that a person has committed or will commit an offense, the individual must identify themselves.

Smith v. Ohio

  • Key Case: Refusal to show police a paper bag without probable cause constitutes a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

California v. Hodari D. (1991)

  • Abandoned Evidence: Items that are abandoned, such as trash or items discarded during a pursuit, may be seized without a warrant.