Chapter 2- Exclusionary rule Flashcards Preview

Briefs of leading Cases in Law Enforcement > Chapter 2- Exclusionary rule > Flashcards

Flashcards in Chapter 2- Exclusionary rule Deck (27):
1

exclusionary rule

provides that any evidence obtained by the government in violation of the 4th Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures is not admissible in court.

2

judge made rule

purpose to deter police misconduct

3

First exclusionary rule case decided by Supreme Court

Boyd v United States, 1886

4

Boyd v United States

Court held that forced disclosure of papers amounting to evidence of a crime violated the 4th Amend.right of suspects and evidence could not be used

5

What case Court held that evidence illegally obtained by federal officers could not be used in Federal criminal prosecutions

Weeks v United States, 1914

6

Leading and best known case on exclusionary rule

Mapp v Ohio, 1961

Mapp ruling extended to state criminal proceedings

7

exclusionary rule applies to who?

only police. Meant to deter police misconduct.

8

Leading cases on exclusionary rule are?

Mapp v Ohio and Weeks v United States

9

Evidence seized by federal law enforcement officers in violation of 4th Amendment is not admissible in federal prosecution

Weeks v United States

Weeks using mail to transport tickets for lottery. Officers searched Weeks home without warrant and seized articles and papers.

10

rule extended to state criminal prosecutions. What case and year?

Mapp v Ohio, 1961

11

silver platter doctrine

1914 to 1960 federal courts
admiited evidence of a federal crime if it was obtained illegally by state officers, as long as there was no connivance with federal officers.

12

in 1960 What court case rejected "silver platter doctrine"

Elkins v United States, holding the 4th Amend, the use of illegally obtained evidence in federal prosecutions whether it was obtained by federal or state officers

13

1952, some searches are so "Shocking to the Conscience" that they require exclusion of the evidence seized based on due process

Rochin v California. Evidence recovered as a result of pumping Rochin's stomach. Although searches by state law enforcement officers are not governed by the exclusionary rule, some searches are so shocking to the conscious, as to require exclusion of evidence based on due process clause of the constitution. these cases are limited to acts of coercion, violence and brutality

14

Mapp v Ohio, 1961

exclusionary rule applies to all state crim proceedings.
Mapp convicted on poss of lewd and lascivious books, pictures and photos in violation of Ohio law. Cleveland Officers forced way into home collecting evidence.

15

Evidence obtained as a result of illegal acts by the police must be excluded. In addition, the "fruit of the poisonous tree" of that illegal act must also be excluded. evidence that has been purged of the primary taint, however, is admissible

Wong Sun v United States.
Selling heroin from a laundry mat. Statements or evidence obtained indirectly as a result of unlawful arrest or search are not admissible, "tainted fruit of the poisonous tree". A suspects intervening act of free will, however, breaks the chain of illegality, purges the evidence of the taint and makes evidence admissible.

16

Purged taint exception

exception to exclusionary rule. despite the initial illegality, the evidence may nonetheless be admissible if it has been purged of the initial taint.

17

illegally obtained evdience may be admissible if the police can prove that they would have discovered the evidence anyway thru lawful means

Nix v Williams
10 yr old disappeared from YMCA in Des Moines, Iowa. Williams arrested,arraigned and transported back to Des Moines. Officer had conversation about the girl having a Christian Burial which elicited Williams into showing where body was

18

iinevitable discovery

exception to exclusionary rule. exception set out in the case states evidence that is fruit of poisonous tree is admissilbe if police can prove they would inevitably have discovered the evidence.

19

the "good faith" exception to the exclusionary rule allows the use of evidence obtained by officers who are acting in reasonable reliance on a search warrant that is later declared invalid

United States v Leon
good faith exception to 4th Amend exclusionary rule allows the use of evidence obtained by officers acting in reasonable reliance on a search warrant issued by a neutral and detached magistrate that is ultimately found invalid

20

Massachusetts v Sheppard, 1984

second case involving exclusionary rule, where good faith exception was applied due to a search warrant declared invalid, err by judge.

21

The "independent source" exception to exclusionary rule allows the use of evidence obtained by officers who act in reasonable reliance on a search warrant that is based on info that was not obtained illegally

Murray v United States, 1988
forced entry to warehouse and in plain view observed bales of marijuana.. court reasoned that evidence ought not to have been excluded just because of unrelated illegal conduct by police. probable cause search wart can be established apart from illegal activity, the evidence obtained should be admissible.

22

Warrantless nonconsensual entry of a residence by police to arrest an overnight guest violates the 4th amend

Minnesota v Olson, 1989
Olson, getaway driver to robbery-murder. olson staying with two women. violated his 4th amed. only on consent or exigent circumstances or warrant can police go in.

23

good faith exception to exclusionary rule does not require suppression of evidence seized in violation of 4th amed where the erroneous information resulted from clerical errors of crt employees

Arizona v Evans, 1995

24

police may enter home without warrant when they have objectively reasonable basis for believing that an occupant is seriously injured or imminently threatened with such injury

Brigham City, Utah v Stuart ET AL, 2006
loud party disturbance. officers heard shouting inside house, observed two juv. drinking in backyard and thru screen door and windows saw fight in kitchen.

25

exigent circumstances

danger to third person or emergency aid,
danger or harm to officer or destruction of evidence, hot pursuit

26

Statements are nontestimonial (and therefore admissible in court) when made in course of police interrogation under circumstances objectively indicating that the primary purpose of interrogation is to enable police assistance to meet an ongoing emergency

Davis v Washington, 2006
911 tape-recordings of calls to police may be admissible in court during trial as evidence as long as they are nontestimonial. primary purpose of interrogation is to enable police assistance to meet an ongoing emergency.

27

good faith exception for police applies to errors made by non-judicial personnel. a search incident to arrest based on erroneous info is also valid

Herring v United States, 2009
Herring arrested on warrants. during search incident to arrest, drugs and weapon found.. Later found the warrant was not valid because it was recalled 5 mths earlier.