1. Rules of Evidence

2. Exclusionary Rule
Established by Four Important Supreme Court Decision:
Weeks v. U.S. (1914)
Mapp v. Ohio (1961)
Chimel v. California (1969)
U.S. v. Leon (1984)

3. Exclusionary Rule: Weeks v. U.S. (1914)
Weeks is suspected of selling lottery tickets through the mail.
Weeks’ home is searched.
His personal property is confiscated.

4. Exclusionary Rule: Weeks v. U.S. (1914)
Weeks’ attorney asked that personal property be returned.
Federal judge agreed that some of Weeks’ property should be returned.

5. Exclusionary Rule: Weeks v. U.S. (1914)
Weeks is convicted on remaining evidence.
Case is appealed.

6. Exclusionary Rule: Weeks v. U.S. (1914)
Supreme Court Decision:
If some of Weeks’ property had been illegally seized, then the remainder of the property is also considered to be illegally seized.
This case established the exclusionary rule.
Applied to federal cases only.

7. Exclusionary Rule
Evidence illegally seized by the police cannot be used in a trial.
This rule acts as a control over police behavior.

8. Mapp v. Ohio (1961)
Applied the exclusionary rule to States

9. Mapp v. Ohio (1961) Mapp was suspected of hiding a bombing suspect.
Mapp refused police admittance.
Police forced their way in, showing Mapp a paper they said was a search warrant for her house.

10. Mapp v. Ohio (1961)
Mapp grabbed the “warrant” and placed it inside her blouse.
Police retrieved the “warrant” and searched house.

11. Mapp v. Ohio (1961)
Police found pornographic material in a trunk in the basement.
The bombing suspect was not found.

12. Mapp v. Ohio (1961)
Mapp was convicted of possession of pornographic material.
No search warrant was produced at the trial.

13. Mapp v. Ohio (1961)
U.S. Supreme Court decided: th Amendment due process applied to local police, not just federal officers.
Evidence against Mapp was illegally obtained.
Overturned conviction based on inadmissibility of the evidence.

14. Chimel v. California (1969)
Chimel is convicted of burglarizing a coin shop based on evidence gathered at his arrest.
Police have an arrest warrant, but did not have a search warrant.
Police search his whole house, including the garage, attic, and little workshop.

15. Chimel v. California (1969)
Police realize the search might be contested.
Police feel they can justify the search as part of the arrest process, not to gather evidence.
Searches prior to arrest are necessary for police officer protection and should not require a search warrant.

16. Chimel v. California (1969) Chimel is convicted.
U.S. Supreme Court heard the case and decided that the search became invalid when it went beyond the arrested person’s area of “immediate control.”

17. Chimel v. California (1969) Officers may search: the arrested person
the area under the arrested person’s “immediate control”
Officers can search for following reasons:
to protect themselves
to prevent destruction of evidence
to keep defendant from escaping

18. U.S. v. Leon (1984)
Leon is placed under surveillance for drug trafficking.
Police obtain a search warrant based on their observation of Leon.

19. U.S. v. Leon (1984) Police search Leon’s homes and discover drugs.
Leon is convicted of drug trafficking.

20. U.S. v. Leon (1984)
Federal court overturns the case based on lack of probable cause.
State appeals to U.S. Supreme Court.

21. “good faith exception to exclusionary rule”
U.S. v. Leon (1984)
U.S. Supreme Court Decision:
When law enforcement officers have acted in objective good faith, the evidence they have collected should be admissible even if later it is found the warrant was invalid.
“good faith exception to exclusionary rule”

22. Fruits of the Poisoned Tree
Evidence which is directly derived from an illegal search or interrogation is inadmissible in court
AND...

23. Fruits of the Poisoned Tree
All evidence turned up as a result of the original, illegally obtained evidence is tainted and could be thrown out.

24. The Exclusionary Rule Evidence seized illegally may be excluded
A suppression hearing is held between preliminary hearing and trial.
Request to suppress is submitted by defendant’s attorney
Prosecutor rebuts

25. The Exclusionary Rule
The judge decides if the evidence is to be admitted in the trial or suppressed.
The exception is the “good faith exception”

26. Schools of Thought Crime Control Model
Police are going to make mistakes - sue them.
Defendant’s rights are not more important then victim’s rights
Evidence seized illegally should not be excluded.

27. Schools of Thought Due Process Model
Illegally seized evidence must be suppressed.
If used, conviction must be reversed.
Constitutional protection is highest consideration