Exclusionary Rule

Question 1

What is the exclusionary rule?

Answer 1

Exclusionary rule prohibits introduction of evidence obtained in violation of 4A, 5A, 6A rights. It covers both the evidence and “fruits of the poisonous tree” - i.e. things gotten b/c of unlawfully procured statements.

Evidence is excluded UNLESS costs of exclusion outweigh the deterrent effect that exclusion has on cops.

Question 2

What are the 5 exceptions to the fruits of the poisonous tree doctrine?

Answer 2

1. evidence obtained from statements obtained in violation of Miranda
2. evidence obtained from a source independent from the original unlawful source
3. evidence attenuated from the unconstitutional police conduct (think: time, place, subject, degree of violation/how purposeful, etc. - things to break causal link between misconduct and obtaining evidence)
4. inevitable discovery - things that would have been discovered anyway
5. violations of knock & announce rule (any evidence, not just fruits)

Question 3

In what proceedings does/does not the exclusionary rule apply?

Answer 3

Applies in all proceedings except civil, grand juries (unless in violation of federal wiretapping statute), parole revocation proceedings.

Question 4

Does exclusionary rule apply when evidence is obtained in violation of state law or agency rules?

Answer 4

No.

Question 5

What are the 3 exceptions to the exclusionary rule? (i.e. when may evidence be introduced despite the fact it was acquired–directly–in violation of 4/5/6A?

Answer 5

• good faith exception: when cops arrest someone erroneously but in good faith, i.e. honestly believing they are acting pursuant to a valid arrest or search warrant
• can use evidence that should be excluded for impeachment purposes if D testifies (o impeach d not others) (e.g. D voluntary confession made in violation of miranda, or evidence obtained from illegal search)
• knock & announce violations - all evidence admissible

Question 6

What are the 4 exceptions to the good faith exception of the exclusionary rule (i.e. when may a cop’s good faith reliance on warrant/law be insufficient to allow evidence acquired from the arrest/search in?)

Answer 6

1. affidavit so lacks PC, no reasonable cop could have relied on it in good faith
2. so lacking in particularity, no reasonable officer would have relied
3. cop lied to/misled magistrate in seeking warrant
4. biased magistrate

Question 7

What result when illegal evidence is admitted wrongfully?

Answer 7

Conviction should be overturned on appeal UNLESS the govt can show BRD that the error was harmless, i.e. the conviction will be upheld if it would have resulted despite the evidence being excluded.

In habeas proceedings, then petitioner should be released if they can show the error had a substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury verdict.

Note; denial of counsel is never harmless

Question 8

Is admissibility/exclusion decided by judge or jury?

Answer 8

D has right to have it decided by judge, out of hearing of the jury. Govt must show admissibility by PoE.