Remedies & Identifications Flashcards
(16 cards)
Exclusionary rule
two big arguments for why we have it
- Police shouldn’t be allowed to get away with violating citizen’s constitutional rights. Exclusionary rule discourages wrongdoing.
- It’s beneath the dignity of the federal courts to use as evidence the stuff that was obtained in violation of the supreme law of the land.
^ This second rationale disappears from SCOTUS court opinions.
Exclusionary rule
Base rule
If you can prove that cops violated your rights in obtaining evidence, it is excluded from coming in.
Fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine
- you also can’t use evidence that you found because of an earlier violation.
When does the exclusionary rule apply?
- Applies only to deliberate, reckless or grossly negligent conduct only
- But-for causality is only a necessary, not a sufficient, condition for suprresion.
- Only applies for the doctrine established at the time of the conduct. (if police were relying on sound judicial precedent, you dont’ get exclusionary rule just bc it changed)
Who has standing to invoke exclusionary rule?
A Defendant only has standing to invoke the exclusionary rule if THEIR OWN rights were violated. If gov violated someone else’s rights and obtained evidence against you, you don’t have standing the invoke the exclusionary rule.
Exclusionary rule
Houses
- If you are staying the night at someone’s house, you get to enjoy the Constitutional protections of their home
- If you’re only temporarily there on a commercial basis, you don’t have standing.
Exclusionary rule
Cars
- Owner of car or driver of car has sufficient dominion to give them standing to stuff in the car that was unlawfully searched & seized.
- If car is unlawfully stopped, everyone in the car has standing to invoke exclusionary rule. (Brendlin)
- All have been seized unreasonably, so the whole car’s rights were personally violated.
Exclusionary Rule
application to Miranda
Can use exclusionary rule to keep out YOUR OWN statements if miranda violation.
CANT keep gov from calling/using evidence from the person you mentioned in your statements
CANT keep out physical evidence (not testimonial)
Exclusionary rule exceptions
List
- “independent” source doctrine
- Inevitable discovery
- Attenuation
Exclusionary rule exceptions
Independent source doctrine
i. If you can convince the court by a preponderance of evidence that even if you would erase the violation from existence, you would have still gotten the same evidence in the same condition, that evidence not barred by the exclusionary rule. (Murray)
Rationale: Exclusionary rule puts officers in the place they would have been without the violation. When the challenged evideence has an independent source, exclusion of such evidence would put the police in a worse position thatn they would have been absent any error or violation.
Ex: A team breaks into wearhouse no warrant. B team pulls up a few seconds later, no warrant.
Exclusionary rule exceptions
Inevitable discovery
i. If you can convince the court by a preponderance of evidence that had the violation not existed you would have inevitably discovered the same evidence in the same condition, the evidence is not barred by the exclusionary rule. (Nix v. Williams)
Ex: Nix v. Williams – Get Williams to tell them where the body is in violation of Massiah, BUT they had a really big search party searching in that same area, so we would have found the body anyways.
Same rationale: exclusion of the evidence would put the government in a WORSE position had the misconduct not existed.
Exclusionary rule exception
Attenuation
i. When the evidence obtained is sufficiently attenuated from the Constitutional violation, the exclusionary rule will not bar it from coming in.
1. Similar to proximate cause. Enough time or weird stuff happened in between the violation and the evidence.
Wong Sun volunteered came back several days later. goood enough
Brown guy gets violated then mirandized and makes the statement = not good enough
Also, discovery of a valid arrest warrant is sufficient per se attenuation
Defendant’s testimony at suppression hearings
Can’t be used against Defendant at their trial in the gov’s case in chief (but could be used to impeach)
Franks hearing —- what happens if you get a warrant by lying about some of the facts in order to meet probable cause?
Remove the stuff that was false from the warrant application, then ask in retrospect if the remaining stuff meets or exceeds probable cause.
Four factors that play a large role in making it nearly impossible to receive monetary damages for Constitutional violations
- Criminalizing evidence found makes it hard to win over a jury.
- Monetary damages often too low for lawyers to take.
- Qualified immunity
4 ???
Eyewitness ID
Identification procedure & 6A right to counsel
POST indictment IN PERSON identification procedures are a “critical stage” where a lawyer must be present.
If lineup is before right to counsel attaches, or is not in person, or is any other type of identification procedures that is not a post indictment in person lineup this ^^ rule doesn’t apply.
Identification & Due Process
How bad does the ID have to be to violate due process?
Pretty much they have to be dressing the guy up in the described clothing. Not bad enough to do a show up. Not bad enough to do a single photo photo array.
