Exclusionary Rule Step 1: was evidence obtained in violation of a federal constitutional right or a federal statutory right? o If not, go to Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Analysis Step 2: what type of proceeding is evidence sought to be excluded from? o If Criminal, go to Step 3 o If not Criminal, no exclusion. Step 3: is evidence used for impeachment? o If No, go to Step 4 o If Yes, no exclusion. Step 4: was there good faith reliance? o Opinion that was later changed o Statute later held unconstitutional o Defective warrant lacking in PC that no reasonable officer would have relied on it. invalid on its face affiant lied or misled magistrate magistrate wholly abandoned judicial role Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Analysis Step 1: was evidence derived from an illegal arrest or search? o Rule: Evidence derived from Step 2: would police have obtained evidence properly: o from an independent source? o through inevitable discovery? Step 3: is link between evidence and illegal conduct attenuated?
Exclusionary Rule Expanded Step 1: was evidence obtained in violation of a federal constitutional right or a federal statutory right? o Violation of Federal Right Rule: the exclusion rule only applies when a federal right has been violated.
US v. Caceres—IRS agent went to ∆’s home—conducted search that was contrary to rules and regulations of IRS which were published in the Federal Register: IRS would not conduct routine searches after 6 PM. Search was conducted at 8:30 PM. Held: No Exclusion—no federal right violated.
o Scope: the rule applies to both: Federal cases [Weeks v. US]
State cases [Mapp v. Ohio] Also, evidence unlawfully obtained by federal officers is inadmissible in state cases and federal cases; evidence unlawfully obtained by state officers is also inadmissible in both state and federal cases [Elkins v. US]
Step 2: what type of proceeding is evidence sought to be excluded from? o To determine when the rule should apply, the Court weighs the cost of excluding the illegally obtained evidence against the deterrent benefit of extending the rule to a new situation. o If Criminal, go to Step 3 o If not Criminal, NO EXCLUSION. civil proceedings [US v. Janis] conduct of grand jury [US v. Calandra] preliminary hearing and other non-trial proceedings parole revocation proceedings [Scott v. The Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole]
Step 3: is evidence used for impeachment? o Rule: illegally-obtained evidence may be used to impeach the ∆’s credibility if she testifies on her own behalf [US v. Havens; Harris v. New York] Note: this only applies to the ∆’s testimony, not other witnesses [James v. Illinois] Step 4: was there good faith reliance? o Opinion That Was Later Changed Rule: evidence will not be excluded where police relied in good faith on a previous opinion which was later changed.
US v. Peltier—In 1973, in Alameda-Sanchez, SC ruled that roving patrol warrantless searches of car 25 mi. (or more) inside the US border were unconstitutional. Six weeks before AlmedaSanchez was decided, ∆’s car was stopped 25 mi+ inside US border without warrant and find marijuana. Held: No Exclusion—good-faith reliance.
o Statute Later Held Unconstitutional Rule: evidence will not be excluded where police relied in good faith on a statute or ordinance later declared unconstitutional.
Michigan v. DeFillippo—Detroit ordinance: failure to ID to PO gives PO probable cause to arrest you. PO goes up to alley and demands that dudes identify himself dude refuses to and PO arrests him and finds drugs. ∆ claims illegal search—PO claim search was incident to a lawful arrest. Between time he was arrested and time of his appeal, both US and MI SCs declared such an ordinance unconstitutional. Held: No Exclusion—good faith reliance.
Exception: Exclusion if statute is so grossly and obviously unconstitutional that no police officer would have relied on it.
o Defective Warrant Rule: Evidence will not be excluded if police relied in good faith on a defective warrant. Impropriety in execution of warrant does not destroy good-faith defense. Exceptions:
warrant so lacking in PC that no reasonable officer would have relied on it. o Note: PC close calls go to the government invalid on its face (e.g., fails to meet particularity requirement) affiant lied or misled magistrate magistrate wholly abandoned judicial role Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Analysis
Step 1: was evidence derived from an illegal arrest or search? o Rule: evidence derived from the exploitation of the initially-excluded evidence is excluded, even if obtained by lawful means [Wong Sun v. US]. Unless: Independent Source Inevitable Discovery Intervening Act of Free Will o Scope: where original police illegality is a mere failure to give Miranda warnings, but statements were in fact voluntary, doctrine does not apply to physical evidence derived from the statements [US v. Patane].
Step 2: would police have obtained evidence properly: from an independent source? Rule: if the police can show that evidence was derived from a source independent of the original police illegality, there is no exclusion. through inevitable discovery? Rule: if police would have discovered derivative evidence anyway, there is no exclusion.
o Brewer v. Williams—∆ arrested for murder of girl. Officers transported ∆ and they agreed with lawyer not to interrogate ∆. The two officers that knew he was a member of a fund. Christian sect and engaged in “Christian burial speech”—“Gee, isn’t it a shame that we can’t find the body—everyone is entitled to a Christian burial?” ∆ takes them to the body. Held: Interrogation, violation of 6A—Exclusion of confession. But… Nix v. Williams—at the time they gave burial speech, the police had 250 volunteers combing the woods very near where the body was found and they would have found the body in another 15-30 minutes. Held: No exclusion of body—police would have inevitably discovered it.
Step 3: is link between evidence and illegal conduct attenuated? o Rule: if there is an intervening act of free will between the police illegality and the derivative evidence, there is no exclusion. Ex—∆ illegally arrested on Friday; Saturday out on bail; Monday hires a lawyer; Tuesday voluntarily returns to station to confess.