Criminal Procedure: Theory and Practice, 2d. by Jefferson L. Ingram

CHAPTER 3 The Principles of the Mapp Exclusionary Rule

1. Introduction to Remedies for Fourth Amendment Violations “In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperilled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously.” Justice Brandeis in Olmstead v. United States (1928).

1. Introduction to Remedies for Fourth Amendment Violations. (cont.) “If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy.” Justice Brandeis in Olmstead v. United States (1928).

Introduction to Remedies for Fourth Amendment Violations. (cont.) Where government violates Fourth Amendment: exclude the evidence illegally obtained from use in court.

2. Violation of the Fourth Amendment and the Exclusion of Evidence. Illegally seized evidence: Not be used to prove guilt in a criminal trial. Remedy helps the guilty. Fails to directly assist the innocent.

3. The Fourth Amendment: Implementation Prior to 1914. Before 1914, in a rare case: Illegally seized evidence excluded from federal trials. Weeks v. United States, (1914): Court constructed exclusionary rule prohibiting the use of illegal evidence.

4. The Exclusionary Rule: Enforcing the Fourth Amendment. Weeks v. United States, the defendant’s residence illegally entered without a warrant by a United States marshal. Weeks Court held: evidence should not have been introduced at his trial.

4. The Exclusionary Rule: Enforcing the Fourth Amendment. (cont.) After Weeks: excluded illegally seized evidence from federal criminal trials. Weeks exclusionary rule: enforced Fourth Amendment. Method: removed incentives to violate Fourth Amendment.

5. Suppression of Illegally Seized Evidence. Effect of exclusionary rule: places parties in same position as if Fourth Amendment never violated. Upon allegation of Fourth Amendment violation: Court holds hearing to determine suppression.

6. Basis for the Exclusionary Rule. Philosophy underpinning the exclusionary rule: If the courts were to permit the use of illegally seized evidence: Would be condoning the illegality. Would become indirect participants of Fourth Amendment violations.

6. Basis for the Exclusionary Rule. (cont.) Eliminates incentive to police to violate a person’s rights: illegally seized evidence has limited use. Exclusionary rule deters future violations.

7. Challenge to the Exclusionary Rule: The Silver Platter Doctrine. Exclusionary rule of Weeks: No application to state courts or police. Silver Platter Doctrine: evidence illegally seized by federal officials admissible in state courts.

7. Challenge to the Exclusionary Rule: The Silver Platter Doctrine 7. Challenge to the Exclusionary Rule: The Silver Platter Doctrine. (cont.) Silver Platter Doctrine: evidence illegally seized by state officials admissible in federal courts. Rationale: Federal police and courts have not violated Constitution.

7. Challenge to the Exclusionary Rule: The Silver Platter Doctrine 7. Challenge to the Exclusionary Rule: The Silver Platter Doctrine. (cont.) Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206 (1960): evidence obtained illegally by police in states, must be excluded from federal court admission. Abolished part of the Silver Platter Doctrine.

8. Application of the Exclusionary Rule to State Criminal Procedure. Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961): state courts cannot allow use of illegally seized evidence. Fourth Amendment guarantees now applicable to limit actions of states. Fourteenth Amendment, due process of law: Includes Fourth Amendment.

Case 3.1, Leading Case Brief: Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961). Facts: Police broke into defendant’s home without a warrant. Evidence found was used against her in state court. She contended Fourth Amendment protected her from illegal search. Issue: Should Fourth Amendment and the exclusionary rule apply to states? Held: Yes. Rationale: Due process requires fundamental fairness and Court found that right of privacy should be enforceable against state action. The right is same in state as for federal courts, so exclusionary rule should apply to keep illegally seized evidence from court.

9. Exclusion of Derivative Evidence. Derivative evidence obtained by exploiting Fourth Amendment violation: Also excluded. “Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine” excludes additional evidence discovered by using illegal evidence.

9. Exclusion of Derivative Evidence. (cont.) Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963), excluded evidence from second person’s home where first search illegal. Illegal search: “Poisons” downstream evidence related to first search.

Case 3. 2, Leading Case Brief: Wong Sun v. Unites States, 371 U. S Facts: Derivative evidence found at third party’s home used against defendant. He contended that evidence was tainted and should be suppressed. Issue: Should derivative evidence be suppressed when illegality revealed the evidence? Held: Yes. Rationale: Using derivative evidence obtained by personal Fourth Amendment violation should be suppressed because original illegality revealed the later evidence that would not have been discovered but for illegality.

10. Major Exceptions the Exclusionary Rule. Supreme Court identified three major exceptions to exclusionary rule: The independent source rule. The rule of inevitable discovery. The doctrine of attenuation.

11. Exclusionary Rule Exception: The Independent Source Rule. Illegally seized evidence admissible: If alternative or parallel method of discovery exists. Admissible evidence if obtained from lawful source.

Exclusionary Rule Exception: The Independent Source Rule. (cont.) Example: Police had search probable cause. To be sure that seizable evidence was present: Broke into house to make sure. Police made confirmation. In obtaining a valid warrant, the police did not use evidence from their break-in. Warrant is good, since its probable cause has an independent source.

12. Exclusionary Rule Exception: The Rule of Inevitable Discovery. Police find evidence through illegal means: A legal means of discovery existed. Evidence admissible: Otherwise government in worse position than if no illegal search occurred.

12. Exclusionary Rule Exception: The Rule of Inevitable Discovery 12. Exclusionary Rule Exception: The Rule of Inevitable Discovery. (cont.) Example: Police illegally searched suspect’s home and discovered evidence of location where homicide victim hidden. At the same time, police searched large field using a grid system and would have the body hours later. The evidence of the dead body should be admitted.

13. Exclusionary Rule Exception: The Doctrine of Attenuation. Illegally seized evidence separated by time, distance and/or events from the seizure: Admissible evidence. Sufficient separation: Illegal discovery of evidence not clearly linked to newly obtained evidence.

13. Exclusionary Rule Exception: The Doctrine of Attenuation. (cont.) Example: Illegal seizure prompts immediate confession. All evidence should be excludable. Weeks later, subject offers confession again, to make deal with police. Second confession, related to the first, usually admissible. Confessions purged of original “poison” by the passage of time and the intervention of free will.

14. Exclusionary Rule Exception: The Good Faith Exception. Applies where police make error. Conduct must be no fault of police or understandable error. Must be where application of exclusionary rule would not have changed police behavior.

15. Limitations on the Exclusionary Rule: Parole Revocation Hearings. Parole revocation hearings not completely adversarial in nature. Would produce minimal deterrence on law enforcement conduct. No use where social costs would outweigh benefits. Pennsylvania v. Scott (1998).

16. Limitations on the Exclusionary Rule: Other Contexts. “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 . . .” Justice O’Connor, Duckworth v. Eagan (1989).

16. Limitations on the Exclusionary Rule: Other Contexts. (cont.) No vicarious assertion of exclusionary rule. No application where police relied on illegal law. No application to limit impeachment. No application to judicial errors.

17. Alternative Remedies to Fourth Amendment Violations: The Bivens Civil Suit. Exclusionary rule: Serves as no remedy for a person never tried. Bivens suit: Remedy for outrageous federal agent conduct during search or seizure. Federal agents subject to Bivens suit for outrageous personal conduct.

18. Limits to Use of the Exclusionary Rule: The Concept of Standing. Standing requires: Party to have personally had Fourth Amendment rights violated. Illegal search or arrest involving: Victim’s house, car, personal property. Aggrieved person’s telephone or computer. Defendant’s rented store and lock.

18. Limits to Use of the Exclusionary Rule: The Concept of Standing 18. Limits to Use of the Exclusionary Rule: The Concept of Standing. (cont.) Standing: threshold issue that must be determined in defendant’s favor to permit suppression arguments. Standing exists: where evidence to be admitted came from place where defendant has expectation of privacy.

Case 3.3, Leading Case Brief: Rakas v. Illlinois, 439 U.S. 128 (1978). Facts: Police arrested Rakas in another’s car and seized evidence. Court denied chance to argue suppression since he did not own or lease car and made no claim of personal right violation. Issue: If defendant has no claim to car or property within, does he have standing? Held: No. Rationale: To have standing to argue suppression of evidence, defendant must make personal claim of violation of rights. Here, defendant had no ownership of car and made no claim of ownership or possession of contents. Affirmed conviction.

Slight expansion of standing: Brendlin v. California (2007). 18. Limits to Use of the Exclusionary Rule: The Concept of Standing. (cont.) Slight expansion of standing: Brendlin v. California (2007). Defendant passenger granted standing to contest stop of vehicle. Theory: When police stopped driver in car, passenger also seized.

19. Vicarious Standing Not Permitted. Standing to suppress evidence: Requires personal Fourth Amendment violation. General Rule: Legitimate occupier of apartment has standing. No standing: Briefly using another person’s apartment to prepare drugs for sale.

20. Summary. Violation of Personal Fourth Amendment Rights: May attempt suppression of evidence. Exclusionary Rule: Helps enforce Fourth Amendment. Exceptions to exclusionary rule: Where suppression would not help enforce Fourth Amendment.