Upgrade to remove ads
Only $35.99/year

chapter 10

Terms in this set (38)

A. The exclusionary rule bans "good evidence" obtained by "bad methods."
1. "Good evidence" means evidence that can help prove the defendant's guilt.
"Bad methods" means conduct that violates the
(1) Fourth Amendment ban on unreasonable searches and seizures
(2) Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination
(3) Sixth Amendment right to counsel
(4) Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process of law
There is no mention of the exclusionary rule in the Constitution; but James Madison believed
it was implied in judicial power.
A. 1914 - Weeks v. U.S.: The U.S. Supreme Court created
the exclusionary rule;1. It applied only to federal courts.
2. It covered only private papers and belongings.
1949 - Wolf v. Colorado:
A. The Court applied the Fourteenth Amendment, but not the exclusionary rule, to state proceedings; states could decide the remedy for themselves.
1961 - Mapp v. Ohio:
A. The Court applied the Fourteenth Amendment, but not the exclusionary rule, to state proceedings; states could decide the remedy for themselves.
1984 - U.S. v. Leon:
A. The exclusionary rule isn't a constitutional right; it's a device to protect constitutional rights.
1. Established the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule.
A. SCOTUS has focused its interrogation on the exclusionary rule on three justifications:
1. Constitutional right - The Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights wouldn't mean anything without the exclusion. (Weeks v. U.S.)
2. Judicial integrity - The courts shouldn't participate in unconstitutional behavior by approving it. (Linkletter v. Walker)
3. Deterrence - Prevent unconstitutional conduct by government officers.
a. According to SCOTUS excluding illegally obtained evidence isn't
a constitutional right, it's a prophylactic rule.
A. The "remedial objective" is to deter police from violating an individual's constitutional rights. But, enforcing the rule comes at a cost.
1. The social cost of the rule—freeing guilty people, undermining the prosecution's case, and obstructing the search by keeping good evidence out of court—led the SCOTUS to limit its application to cases it believes are most likely to deter police misconduct.
The the exceptions to the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine
allow more evidence into court to prove guilt.
justifications for the exclusionary rule
1. constitutional right
2.judicial integrity
3.detterence
4.prophylactic rule
definition of attenuation
thinning, weakening, or emaciation
A. Attenuation
1. Tainted evidence is admissible if the totality of circumstances in the case proves that the "poisonous" connection between police illegality and the evidence has weakened enough.
A. Independent source
1. Tainted evidence is admissible if after violating the Constitution, officers get the same evidence in a totally separate lawful action.
A. Inevitable discovery
1. Tainted evidence is admissible if police law-breaking produced the evidence but the evidence would've been discovered eventually anyway.
A. Nontrial proceedings (collateral use) exception
1. Include bail hearings; Illegally obtained evidence is admissible in all nontrial settings (bail hearings, preliminary hearings, grand jury proceedings, habeas corpus proceedings).
A. Trial proceedings: Cross-examination
1. The prosecution can use illegally obtained evidence to undermine defense witnesses' (including the defendant's) credibility.
A. The "knock-and-announce" exception
1. Permits the admission of evidence seized during searches of homes, even when officers violate the "knock-and-announce" rule.
A. The good-faith exception
1. This exception applies only to evidence obtained by search warrants that later turn out to be illegal.
2. Evidence obtained during execution of an illegal search warrant is admissible only if the government can prove:
a. Officers honestly relied on the legality of the warrants.
b. It was reasonable for officers to believe the warrants were legal.
3. The reason is there's no deterrent effect if officers honestly and reasonably believed the warrants were lawful.
Know that the social costs and deterrent effect of the exclusionary rule are based on assumptions, not empirical evidence.
assumptions, not empirical evidence
Understand that empirical research suggests that the social costs of the exclusionary rule may not be as
severe as we commonly believe; criminal cases are rarely dismissed due to illegally obtained evidence.
Is the social cost of the exclusionary rule too high?
1. We will probably never know the answer to this question.
2. It's hard to conduct empirical research so we have to rely on speculation.
3. Both sides have plausible arguments.
1. Studies indicate that the rule affects
only a small proportion of cases.
1. A nationwide survey of 800 criminal justice officials indicated that:
a. They don't believe the exclusionary rule is a significant impediment to crime control.
b. It has promoted professionalism in police departments across the country.
c. It appears to be a significant safeguard with little cost.
d. It reflects the values of the Fourth Amendment.
1. Perhaps the strongest argument in its favor is
that it helps to ensure judicial integrity
In Miranda v. Arizona (1966), the Supreme Court ruled that
detained criminal suspects, prior to police questioning, must be informed of their constitutional right to an attorney and against self-incrimination. Miranda was not informed of his rights prior to the police interrogation.
definition of certiorari
a writ or order by which a higher court reviews a decision of a lower court.
McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (1984),
is a decision of the United States Supreme Court which ruled that, in the case of a person stopped for a misdemeanor traffic offense, once they are in custody, the protections of the Fifth Amendment apply to them pursuant to the decision in Miranda v.A person subjected to custodial interrogation is entitled to the benefit of the procedural safeguards enunciated in Miranda, regardless of the nature or severity of the offense of which he is suspected or for [468 U.S. 420, 421] which he was arrested
What is the public safety exception as discussed in the case of New York v Quarles?
There is a "public safety" exception to the requirement that Miranda warnings be given before a suspect's answers may be admitted into evidence, and the availability of that exception does not depend upon the motivation of the individual officers involved.
New york v. Quarles
In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court found that the jurisprudential rule of Miranda must yield in "a situation where concern for public safety must be paramount to adherence to the literal language of the prophylactic rules enunciated in Miranda".
Manson v. Brathwaite
7-2 decision for Manson;SCOTUS held that a suggestive identification procedure does not automatically require excluding the evidence if the identification is reliable, considering the totality of the circumstances. With the circumstances in this case, the identification was reliable
Perry v. New Hampshire (2012)
The Court held that trial judges do not have to conduct preliminary assessments of the reliability of eyewitness identifications that were made under suggestive circumstances when the circumstances were not created by law enforcement personnel.
berghuis v thompkins
The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed, holding that the state court was unreasonable in finding an implied waiver of Thompkins' right to remain silent and in rejecting his ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim.
Colorado v. Connelly
The Colorado Supreme Court held that the initial confession was involuntary, notwithstanding the absence of any police misconduct, because it was the product of command hallucinations that placed Connelly in the dilemma of choosing either to confess or to commit suicide.
Brown v. Mississippi
was a United States Supreme Court case that ruled that a defendant's involuntary confession that is extracted by police violence cannot be entered as evidence and violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
motion to suppress
a motion requesting that the court disallow illegally obtained evidence at trial
who holds the motion to suppress
is a request by a defendant that the judge exclude certain evidence from trial. The defense often makes this motion well in advance of trial—if the defendant wins it, the prosecution or judge may have to dismiss the case. Whether dismissal is appropriate depends on how important the evidence is to the prosecution's case.
Students also viewed