Exclusionary Rule
What is the Exclusionary Rule?
legal principle preventing the government from using evidence obtained in violation of 4A in a criminal prosecution. Established in 1914 in Weeks v US and applied to states via 14A Due Process Clause in Mapp v Ohio.
Hunter is accused of playing 2048 during Wade's class, a criminal offense. An IP address matching his computer comes up during a University review of flagged sites accessed while using the school's wifi. Can these records be used to prosecute Hunter?
Yes - under the Third Party Doctrine, Hunter has no reasonable expectation of privacy when using the school wifi to play games on his computer.
protection of the officer or to prevent the destruction of evidence within the immediate control of the arrestee.
Sturdy James is accused of murdering his wife with the help of an accomplice named Mo. While at the police station, Sturdy is questioned for 3 hours straight. Eventually he confesses. Sturdy argues this confession was coerced. Result?
Prolonged questioning alone does not amount to coercion sufficient to render his confessions inadmissible or involuntary.
Martina gets pulled over after weaving in and out of traffic on a busy road. When asked whether she had been drinking that night, Martina admits that she had several jell-o shots and lots of edible glitter. Later, she moves to suppress these statements as a violation of Miranda. Result?
a routine traffic stop does not impose the same pressures as a custodial setting because it is typically brief, public, and involves less police domination; questioning during such stops does not require Miranda warnings unless the individual is subjected to restraints akin to formal arrest. Here, Martina gave a voluntary statement.
Carly owns a business. Connor owns his own competing business and steals private documents from Carly's office to evidence tax evasion. Are these private documents admissible in proceedings against Carly?
Yes - Private Actor Exception. 4A protection against unreasonable searches and seizures applies only to governmental actions and not to private individuals. (Burdeau v McDowell)
Connor goes camping with Peter. The boys decide to fully embrace their nature experience by doing shrooms. Officer Ryan comes by while the boys are out looking for firewood. He looks in their tent and sees half-eaten shrooms. Is Officer Ryan's seizure of the shrooms lawful?
No - tents constitute a legitimate dwelling for 4A purposes; reasonable expectation of privacy prevents warrantless search and seizure of shrooms. (Kelley v State)
Officer Ryan pulls Connor over to conduct a custodial, lawful arrest. After asking Connor to step out of the car, Ryan conducts a full search of his person. He doesn't feel anything in Connor's pockets while patting him down, but asks him to empty them. The only thing Connor pulls out is his wallet, which Ryan searches and finds multiple stolen credit cards. Connor moves to suppress the credit cards, arguing they were discovered during an unlawful search absent any probable cause. Result?
A full search (including containers on a person) of a person incident to a lawful custodial arrest is a reasonable search under 4A and does not require additional justification beyond the fact of the arrest. (US v Robinson)
Peter is arrested and indicted. While in jail, he befriends Hunter, and tells him all the details of the crime he committed. Unknown to Peter, Hunter is a confidential informant, who relays the information Peter shared to authorities. Peter argues that the incriminating statements he made are inadmissible because they violate 6A. Result?
Because the informant here only listened and did not actively elicit information from Peter, 6A was not violated. (Kuhlmann v Wilson)
Peter is arrested. While in jail, he befriends Hunter. Unknown to Peter, Hunter is an undercover agent. Peter eventually makes a confession to Hunter, who reports him to authorities. Peter moves to suppress his confession as a violation of Miranda. Result?
confession to an undercover agent while in jail is not a Miranda violation because Peter was not in a coercive atmosphere. (Illinois v Perkins).
Ryan, a police officer, arrives at Connor's house with a search warrant issued by Chief Justice. Ryan recovers steroids and other illicit substances Connor been taking to prepare for his bodybuilding competition. It turns out Chief Justice's warrant was defective because he issued it without probable cause. Are the drugs admissible?
Yes - Good Faith Exception. Illegally seized evidence is admissible if the officer reasonably relied (objective good-faith) on a search warrant later deemed invalid because it was lacking probable cause.(US v Leon)
Officer Ryan has been super busy, so he hires Connor as a cop. Connor goes to Professor Scales' house with his K9 to execute a valid arrest warrant. While waiting for Scales to come to the door, Connor's dog sits near a plant on the porch, indicating the presence of narcotics. Connor recovers the narcotics and seeks to have them admitted against Scales. Scales argues that they were obtained as part of an unlawful search. Who prevails? Why?
Scales wins. Connor was on his porch (within the curtilage of the home) and he was executing an arrest warrant - not a search warrant. The dog sniff counts as an unlawful search under 4A. (FL v Jardines).
Officer Ryan was sitting in his patrol car when he noticed Kyla and Cavika peering into the window of a storefront. When they began walking away. Ryan decides to conduct a Terry stop/frisk, suspecting that criminal activity might be afoot. A pat down revealed they were both armed. Kyla and Cavika argue they were subjected to an unwarranted search/seizure. Result?
Kyla and Cavika are likely to prevail. Ryan's suspicions were unreasonable, as the girls were just looking in the window of a store before moving on. (Terry v Ohio)
Carly is arrested. While being questioned, she invokes her right to counsel and questioning ceases. 5 days later she is given a fresh set of Miranda warnings and responds to questioning. She later moves to have these statements excluded trial. Result?
Carly's statements are inadmissible. waiver of the right to counsel cannot be established by merely demonstrating that the accused responded to further police investigation after being Mirandized again days later. The accused may not be subjected to further interrogation until counsel is made available OR the accused initiates further communication. (Edwards v Arizona)
Connor is arrested. While being questioned, he invokes his right to counsel, and questioning ceases. The police allow him to leave the jail for two weeks to compete in his body building competition. When he returns, Police resume interrogations. Connor refuses to answer since that he already invoked his right to counsel. Can the police interrogate him?
Yes - once a suspect has been released from custody and returned to their normal environment (with at least a 14-day break in custody) they have the opportunity to consult with counsel so prior Miranda invocations come to an end and must be reasserted if another interrogation is initiated. (Maryland v Shatzer)
No one has seen Peter in weeks. The police suspect foul play. Connor organizes a search party to look for Peter, but they have yet to find him. Officer Ryan, acting on a hunch, arrests Carly and questions her until he gets a confession - Carly tells Officer Ryan that he can find Peter in the Mock Courtroom. Ryan finds Peter's body and uses it as evidence against Carly. Can he do this?
Inevitable discovery doctrine: doctrine allows evidence to be admitted if it would have been discovered lawfully regardless of any constitutional violation. Peter's body would have eventually been found by the search party, therefore it is admissible. (Nix v Williams)
Carly, Hunter, and Connor are going on a roadtrip. While driving, Officer Ryan pulls them over for speeding. He asks for consent to search the car. Connor, the driver, consents and Ryan discovers a large stack of cash and green pills. All three passengers deny having any knowledge of the money or the drugs, so Ryan arrests all three. Hunter later confesses that he was responsible for the contraband, but argues that this confession is inadmissible since Ryan had insufficient probable cause to arrest him. What result?
Officer Ryan chases Hunter into an apartment without a warrant as Hunter is fleeing from a crime scene. Officer Ryan trips over the rug in Hunter's living room exposing several pieces of stolen mail. Officer Ryan seizes the stolen mail and begins searching the rest of Hunter's apartment for more. Hunter argues that any mail seized is inadmissible. Result?
The mail seized is inadmissible. Officer Ryan's entry into the home was permissible because he was in hot pursuit of Hunter, however, his seizure of the mail was unlawful because it was not in plain view.
Officer Ryan arrives at the scene of an armed bank robbery where he sees Carly being handcuffed. He asks her whether she was armed, and if so, where she stashed her gun. Carly tells Ryan she threw her gun out the window. Ryan retrieves the gun. Carly moves to suppress this evidence, arguing that she never received Miranda warnings from Ryan before directing him to the gun. Result?
an immediate need to protect the public from potential harm justifies questioning a suspect about a weapon without any Miranda warnings. The presence of a gun in a public area posed an imminent danger, therefore officer inquiry was necessary to neutralize this threat. (NY v Quarels)
Yes - subsequent questioning about an unrelated murder is permissible after a significant time lapse and after Connor was given a fresh set of Miranda warnings. (Michigan v Mosely)
Officer Ryan recently moved to Camden. He goes to introduce himself to his neighbor, Kyla. When she opens the door to greet him, he sees what looks like Martina prepping a line of coke on the kitchen counter. He arrests Martina, and she tells him she got the coke from Cavika. Ryan then arrests Cavika. A few days later, Cavika confesses about the coke. Is her arrest lawful? confession admissible? What about the coke?
Cavika's arrest was unlawful (fruit of poisonous tree - her arrest stemmed from Martina's unlawful arrest and unlawfully obtained statements.) However, Cavika's statements were sufficiently attenuated from her arrest so they are admissible. The coke is admissible against Cavika because her property/privacy interests were not violated when it was obtained.
Connor wants Carly to go to jail. He calls up his friend, Chief Justice, to craft a warrant. The warrant states that there is sufficient probable cause to believe that Carly has been laundering money, and specifies that she is storing large amounts of cash in cardboard boxes at her Grandma's house. Assuming it meets the probable cause and particularity requirements, is Connor's warrant valid?
No - a valid warrant requires 3 things: probable cause, particularity, AND affirmation/oath by the person applying for the warrant that the facts in the affidavit are true.
Officer Ryan arrests Carly for driving under the influence of alcohol. Per local DWI/DUI laws, Ryan calls a tow truck to have Carly's car impounded. While waiting for the car to be towed, Ryan searches her car. In the glove compartment, he discovers an unregistered firearm. When Ryan goes to introduce this evidence, Carly argues it was part of a warrantless search, absent any probable cause. Result?
4A does not prohibit the State from using evidence discovered during an inventory search; inventory searches do not invoke the warrant requirement or the need for probable cause. These searches serve significant governmental interests, such as protecting an owner’s property, safeguarding the police from claims of lost or stolen property, and protecting the police from potential danger. (Colorado v Bertine)
Connor is questioned about a murder he is suspected to be involved in, and he invokes his Miranda right to counsel. The police later Mirandize him again and question him about an unrelated arson incident. Is the subsequent questioning by police permissible?
No - Connor has invoked his Miranda right to counsel, which is not offense-specific.
Connor is arrested and indicted for arson. He invokes his 6A right to counsel. Later, the police ask him about an unrelated murder. He refuses to answer, citing his earlier invocation. Result?
6A right to counsel is offense specific, so he must re-invoke this right.