Exclusionary Rule

Question 1

Exclusionary Rule

Answer 1

The exclusionary rule is a judge-made doctrine that prohibits introduction of evidence obtained in violation of a defendant’s Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment rights.
* Unconstitutionally obtained evidence excluded at trial
* Under the rule, unconstitutionally obtained evidence is inadmissible at trial, and all “fruit of the poisonous tree” (that is, evidence obtained from exploitation of the unconstitutionally obtained evidence) must also be excluded unless the costs of excluding the evidence outweigh the deterrent effect exclusion would have on police misconduct.

Question 2

Fruit of the Poisonous Tree

Answer 2

Evidence obtained from exploitation of unconstitutionally obtained evidence

Exceptions:
* The fruits derived from statements obtained in violation of Miranda
* Evidence obtained from a source independent of the original illegality
* Evidence for which the connection between the unconstitutional police conduct and the evidence is remote (considering whether the misconduct was purposeful or flagrant) or has been interrupted by some intervening circumstance, so that the causal link between the police misconduct and the evidence is broken (“attenuation”—for example, defendant is illegally arrested but is released and later returns to the station to confess; police officers technically make an unlawful stop, but there is an arrest warrant out for the detainee)
* This includes intervening **acts of free will **on the part of the defendant.
* Inevitable discovery—that is, the prosecution can show that the police would have discovered the evidence whether or not the police acted unconstitutionally
* Violations of the knock and announce rule

Question 3

Live Witness Testimony (Exlusionary Rule)

Answer 3

It is difficult to have live witness testimony excluded on exclusionary rule grounds.

Question 4

In-Court Identification

Answer 4

A defendant may not exclude a witness’s in-court identification on the ground that it is the fruit of an unlawful detention.

Question 5

Limitations on Exlusionary Rule

Answer 5

• Inapplicable to Grand Juries (unless evidence was obtained in violation of the federal wiretapping statute), Civil Proceedings, Violations of State Law, Internal Agency Rules, & Parole Revocation Proceedings
• Inapplicable where evidence was obtained contrary only to state law or agency rules.

Question 6

Good Faith Reliance on Law, Detective Serach Warrant, or Clerical Error (Limitations on Exclusionary Rule)

Answer 6

The exclusionary rule does not apply when the police arrest someone erroneously but in good faith thinking that they are acting pursuant to a valid arrest warrant, search warrant, or law.

There are four exceptions to a good faith reliance on a defective warrant:
1. The affidavit underlying that warrant is so lacking in probable cause that no reasonable police officer would have relied on it.
1. The affidavit underlying the warrant is so lacking in particularity that no reasonable officer would have relied on it.
1. The police officer or prosecutor lied to or misled the magistrate when seeking the warrant.
1. The magistrate is biased and therefore has wholly abandoned their neutrality.

Question 7

Use of Exluded Evidence for Impeachment Purposes (Exclusionary Rule)

Answer 7

Some illegally obtained evidence may still be used to impeach the defendant’s credibility if they take the stand at trial.
* Specifically, an otherwise voluntary confession taken in violation of the Miranda requirements is admissible for impeachment purposes,
* and evidence obtained from an illegal search may be used by the prosecution to impeach the defendant’s, but not others’, statements.

Question 8

Knock and Announce Rule Violations (Exclusionary Rule)

Answer 8

Exclusion is not an available remedy for violations of the knock and announce rule pertaining to the execution of a warrant.

Question 9

Harmless Error Test (Exclusionary Rule)

Answer 9

If illegal evidence is admitted, a resulting conviction should be overturned on appeal unless the government can show beyond reasonable doubt that the error was harmless.
* The conviction will be upheld if it would have resulted despite the improper evidence.
* On appeal, the government bears the burden of showing beyond a reasonable doubt that omission was harmless