Exclusionary rule - sustany/dvg GitHub Wiki

Overview

The exclusionary rule prevents the government from using most�evidence�gathered in violation of the�United States Constitution. �The decision in�Mapp�v. Ohio�established that the exclusionary rule�applies to�evidence�gained from an�unreasonable search or seizure�in violation of the�Fourth Amendment.�The decision in�Miranda v. Arizona�established that the exclusionary rule applies to improperly elicited self-incriminatory statements gathered in violation of the�Fifth Amendment, and to�evidence�gained in situations where the government violated the defendant's�Sixth Amendment�right to counsel. �However, the rule does not apply in civil cases, including deportation hearings. See�INS v. Lopez-Mendoza.

Derivatives of Excluded Evidence

If�evidence�that falls within the scope of the exclusionary rule led law enforcement to other�evidence, which they would not otherwise have located, then the exclusionary rule applies to the newly discovered�evidence, subject to a few exceptions. The secondarily excluded�evidence�is called��fruit of the poisonous tree.�

Though the rationale behind the exclusionary�rule is based in constitutional rights, it�is a court-created�remedy�and deterrent, not an independent�constitutional right. �The purpose of the rule is to deter law enforcement officers from conducting�searches or seizures�in�violation of�the�Fourth Amendment�and to provide�remedies�to defendants whose�rights�have been infringed.� Courts have also carved out several exceptions to the exclusionary rule where the costs of exclusion outweigh its deterrent or�remedial�benefits.� For example, the�good-faith exception, below, does not trigger the�rule�because excluding the�evidence�would not deter police officers from violating the law in the future.

Exceptions

Good Faith Exception

Under the�good-faith exception,�evidence�is not excluded if it is obtained by officers who�reasonably�rely on a�search warrant�that turns out to be invalid. See�Arizona v. Evans. Also, in�Davis v. U.S., the�U.S. Supreme Court�ruled that the exclusionary rule does not apply when the police conduct a�search�in reliance on binding�appellate�precedent�allowing the search. UnderIllinois v. Krull,�evidence�may be�admissible�if the officers rely on a�statute�that is later invalidated. �In�Herring v. U.S.,�the Court found that the�good-faith exception�to the exclusionary rule applies when�police employees erred in maintaining records in a�warrant�database.

Independent Source Doctrine

Evidence�initially obtained during an unlawful�search or seizure�may later be�admissible�if�the�evidence�is later obtained through a�constitutionally valid�search or seizure.�Murray v. U.S.�is the modern interpretation of the independent source doctrine, originally adopted in�Nix v. Williams. Additionally, some courts recognize an�"expanded" doctrine, in which a partially tainted warrant�is upheld if, after excluding the tainted information that led to its issuance,�the remaining untainted information establishes probable cause sufficient to justify its issuance. See, for example, the South Dakota Supreme Court decision in�State v. Boll.

Inevitable Discovery Doctrine

Related to the independent source doctrine, above, and also adopted in�Nix v. Williams,�the inevitable discovery doctrine allows admission of�evidence�that was discovered in an unlawful�search or seizure�if it would have be discovered in the same condition anyway, by an independent line of investigation that was already being pursued when the unlawful�search or seizure�occurred.

Attenuation Doctrine

In cases where the relationship between the�evidence�challenged and the unconstitutional conduct�is too remote and attenuated, the�evidence�may be�admissible. See�Utah v. Strieff.�Brown v. Illinois, cited in�Strieff,�articulated three factors for the courts to consider when determining attenuation: temporal proximity, the presence of intervening circumstances, and the purpose and flagrancy of the official misconduct.

Evidence Admissible for Impeachment

The exclusionary rule does not prevent the government from introducing illegally gathered�evidence�to �impeach,� or attack the credibility of, defendants��testimony�at�trial. The�Supreme Court�recognized this exception in�Harris v. New Yorkas a truth-testing device to prevent�perjury. Even when the government suspects�perjury, however, it may only use tainted�evidence�for�impeachment, and may not use it to show guilt.

Qualified Immunity

Due to�qualified immunity, the exclusionary rule is often a defendant's�only�remedy�when police officers conduct an�unreasonable search�or violate their�Miranda�rights. �Even if officers violate a defendant's�constitutional�or statutory rights,�qualified immunity�protects the officers from a�lawsuit�unless no�reasonable�officer would believe that the officers' conduct was legal.�

In�*Vega v. Tekoh (2022)*the Supreme Court held that violating Miranda Rights does not provide a basis for a � 1983 claim. Rather, the court asserted that Miranda imposed �a set of prophylactic rules� that only focused on disallowing the use of statements obtained in violation of those rules. Further, the court held that expanding Miranda rights beyond that would impose substantial costs on the judicial system.�