Exclusionary Rule

Question 1

Steps of a traffic stop

Answer 1

1. Following the vehicle
2. stopping the vehicle
3. conducting the stop
4. search vehicle, containers?

Question 2

Byrd v. United States (2018)

Does a sole occupant of a rental care that is not on the agreement have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the rental vehicle?

Answer 2

Sole occupant of a rental car always has a reasonable expectation of privacy based on mere possession and control

Not the same for theives!

Question 3

Exclusionary rule applies to federal government and the states –
evidence obtained in violation of the 4th Amendment will be

Answer 3

excluded in trial

Question 4

exclusionary principle

Fruit of the poisonous tree

Answer 4

• Applies when evidence is derivative of a constitutional violation
• Generally, looks at “but for” causation and proximate cause
• In other words, is the evidence in question derived from an exploitation of the
  violation or by means sufficiently distinguishable

Question 5

Application of Exclusionary Rule is not automatic

Answer 5

it’s a case by case determination
that begins with addressing whether law enforcement acted in bad faith and if so, then asking whether excluding the evidence outweighs the social cost of exclusion (balancing deterrence against letting a
guilty person go free)

• Even if ER is triggered, still need to consider “but for” causation and “attenuation”

Question 6

Attinuation of the Taint

Answer 6

• Similar to causation
• evidence as fruit of tree
• time lapse

Question 7

Independant source

Answer 7

legal

Question 8

Inevitable Discovery

Answer 8

Illegal but would have got there legally

Question 9

Wong sun v. US

Secondary evidence excluded?

Answer 9

• But for the violation, do you get to the evidence
  No!
• then look to proximate cause (Time lapse or other)
  If so may be attenuated or too far away from constitutional violation
• Ask how connected, attinuated, fruit of poisonous tree

Question 10

Nix v. Williams

Requirement standard to show that discovery of the evidence would have been inevitable

Answer 10

• have to show proponderance of the evidence
• good or bad faith not a requirement

Question 11

1. Unreasonable search
2. standing?
   (no)

Answer 11

ER not available, evidence admissible

Question 12

1. Unreasonable search
2. standing?
   (yes)
   ask

Answer 12

But for the constitutional violation, would the evidence have been discovered?

Question 13

1. Unreasonable search
2. standing?
   (yes)
3. But for the constitutional violation, would the evidence have been discovered?
   (yes)

Answer 13

Yes, evidence would have discovered without the violation– is there a source independent of the const. violation (independent source) or would it have been discovered regardless of the violation
(inevitable discovery)

ER does not apply, evidence comes in

Question 14

1. Unreasonable search
2. standing?
   (yes)
3. But for the constitutional violation, would the evidence have been discovered?
   (no)

Answer 14

No, evidence would not
have been discovered but for
the constitutional violation

Question 15

1. Unreasonable search
2. standing?
   (yes)
3. But for the constitutional violation, would the evidence have been discovered?
   (no)
4. No, evidence would not have been discovered but for the constitutional violation
   (next step/question)

Answer 15

Too Attenuated?
(Brown Factors)

Question 16

1. Unreasonable search
2. standing?
   (yes)
3. But for the constitutional violation, would the evidence have been discovered?
   (no)
4. No, evidence would not have been discovered but for the constitutional violation
5. Too Attenuated? (Brown factors)
   (yes)

Answer 16

ER does not apply, evidence comes in

Question 17

1. Unreasonable search
2. standing?
   (yes)
3. But for the constitutional violation, would the evidence have been discovered?
   (no)
4. No, evidence would not have been discovered but for the constitutional violation
5. Too Attenuated? (Brown factors)
   (no)
   Next question

Answer 17

Did police act in good faith?

Question 18

1. Unreasonable search
2. standing?
   (yes)
3. But for the constitutional violation, would the evidence have been discovered?
   (no)
4. No, evidence would not have been discovered but for the constitutional violation
5. Too Attenuated? (Brown factors)
   (no)
6. Did police act in good faith?
   (yes)

Answer 18

ER does not apply, evidence comes in

Question 19

1. Unreasonable search
2. standing?
   (yes)
3. But for the constitutional violation, would the evidence have been discovered?
   (no)
4. No, evidence would not have been discovered but for the constitutional violation
5. Too Attenuated? (Brown factors)
   (no)
6. Did police act in good faith?
   (no)

Answer 19

Balance social cost ofexclusion against deterrence.

If social cost outweighs deterence, ER does not apply

if deterrence outweighs social cost, ER does apply and evidence not coming in (1/2 negligence/isolated negligence?)

Question 20

Hudson v. Michigan

Substantial Social Harms of
Exclusionary Rule:

Answer 20

1. Letting Guilty People Go Free
2. Extensive Litigation
3. Police Refraining from timely
   entry after knocking/announcing

Question 21

Hudson v. Michigan

Deterrent Effect of Exclusion:

Answer 21

1. Other Remedies Available – 1983
   and police discipline
   (professionalism)
2. Deterring knock/announcing
   violations not worth a lot – such a
   low bar for police to get over

Question 22

Per say rule for knock and announce

Answer 22

no exclusionary rule

Question 23

Exclusionary rule only applies when

Answer 23

the deterance benefits outweigh substantial social costs