Exclusionary Rule
What is the ER?
Excludes evidence obtained illegally by PO against D in trial.
Fruit of the poisonous tree = E that derives indirectly from unconstitutional activity is barred
Poisonous tree = unconstitutional activity
fruit = E that derives from it
Exclusionary rule = fruit that is the direct result of unconstitutional activity is excluded
When must Miranda Warnings be given?
1. In custody
- Would a reasonable person in the suspect's position feel free to end the encounter and leave? Consider the totality of circumstances
2. Being interrogated
- Is the officer engaging in express questioning or its functional equivalent
How does one get the right to stay silent? What happens once invoked?
unambiguously invokes right to silence after Mirandized, questioning must cease but not permanently
When does the 6A right to counsel attach? What about under Miranda?
6A: Attaches automatically once formal proceedings against D have begun
- all critical stages of prosecution
Miranda: Attached once invoked unambiguously, must be in custody and being interrogated
Are the following ambiguous or unambiguous requests for counsel?
1. "I wanna talk to you when I talk to my lawyer"
2. "Maybe I should get a lawyer."
3. "I think I need a lawyer."
4. "I’d like my lawyer here now."
5. "I’d feel more comfortable if I had a lawyer."
1. Unambiguous
2. Ambiguous
3. Ambiguous
4. Unambiguous
5. Ambiguous
What are the exceptions to the ER?
Independent Source Doctrine
- The police obtain knowledge of evidence from a source that is independent of the violation
Inevitable Discovery
- The means by which the evidence would eventually be discovered is independent of from the means by which the evidence was actually discovered
Attenuation
- The chain of causation from the unlawful act by police has been interrupted by some intervening circumstance as to remove the taint of the original illegality
- Factors
1. Temporal Proximity
How much time has gone by since the unlawful act?
2. Intervening events
- Have things occurred since then and did they have an effect?
3. Flagrancy of the original violation
- How bad were the police in their unlawful action?
Goodfaith
- (1) good faith reliance on (2) facially valid warrant from (3) reasonably trained officer
When is someone in custody?
deprivation of freedom of action in any significant way
- Best example of custody = formal arrest – restraint of freedom is associated with formal arrest
- Fact D is in handcuffs is clue D is in custody but is not dispositive (must look at all circumstances) more so if D is in the cop car in handcuffs
How do you determine if a confession is voluntary?
Violence, actual or threatened
Psychological pressure
Length of questioning
Day or night
Incommunicado
Attributes of the suspect
Food and water
Promises of leniency
Coercive police activity
Evidence that is discovered based on a messiah violation should be...
Excluded from trial bc fruit of poisonous tree
Katie was interrogated for 19 hours without breaks, during which officers repeatedly told her she would never see Rigby again unless she confessed. Exhausted, Katie admitted to the crime. Should her confession be suppressed?
*assuming a court would hold Katie and Rigby equivalent to a mother and child...
C: Yes the confession should be suppressed as involuntary under the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
RULE: A confession is involuntary if obtained through coercive police conduct. Courts apply a totality of the circumstances test, considering factors like the duration of interrogation, psychological pressure, and the suspect’s vulnerabilities.
Analysis: The prolonged interrogation, combined with repeated threats about Rigby, constitutes psychological coercion. These tactics overbore Katie's will, making her confession involuntary and therefore inadmissible under the ER
When can evidence that would be excluded by the ER be used in trial?
Good faith exception: (1) good faith reliance on (2) facially valid warrant from (3) reasonably trained officer
Good Faith does not apply when:
1) Magistrate abandoned judicial role – ex. not neutral & detached
2) PO mislead magistrate with info PO knew was false, or PO acted with reckless disregard of truth
3) Warrant facially defective – facial challenge
4) Affidavit so lacking in factual support as to preclude reasonable reliance
Impeachment:
prosecution may use evidence obtained from D in violation of rights for purpose of impeaching D’s direct testimony or answers to questions in cross-examination
How does someone waive Miranda?
Must be knowingly, intelligent, and voluntary
How does someone waive the right to silence? When can the cops start questioning?
Must be knowingly, intelligent, and voluntary waiver
- cops can start questioning again if suspect:
1. Initiates contact with POs AND
2. Is re-Mirandized AND
3. Waives rights
What are the common 6A violations
Massiah Violation: The police cannot deliberately elicit incriminating information from a defendant, who has been formally charged, outside the presence of counsel
Denying the right to counsel at a corporeal identification procedure: The defendant has a 6th Amendment right to counsel at any corporeal identification procedure (e.g., lineup), after formal charges.
The police suspected a woman of killing her husband. They arrested her based on probable cause and took her to the police station. The woman asked the police if she could contact an attorney, but they did not allow her to do so. Without obtaining either the woman’s permission or a court order, the police then took a sample of her blood to run a DNA test. She was later charged with the murder.
If the woman now seeks to have the DNA results excluded at her trial, will she likely succeed?
Yes, because the blood draw violated her Fourth Amendment right to privacy.
The Fourth Amendment provides protection to individuals for situations in which they have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Generally, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in what one knowingly exposes to the public, such as one’s physical appearance, clothing, handwriting, and voice. Therefore, forcing a defendant to reveal these characteristics, such as by having the defendant stand in a lineup, wear particular clothing, or give a handwriting or voice sample, does not implicate the Fourth Amendment. However, more intrusive bodily searches, such as a blood draw, do implicate the Fourth Amendment and require a warrant
Does Fruit of the Poisonous Tree apply to all violations or only some? (4th, 5th, 6th violations)
Violation of REP (S&S) 4th: Fruit of poisonous tree applies
- Both Fruit and Tree excluded
Violation of Miranda 5th: Fruit of poisonous tree doctrine does not apply for Miranda violations
- so the poisonous tree (the statements) are excluded, but the fruit that came from the tree (the Evidence) is not excluded
Violation of right to Counsel 6th: Fruit of poisonous tree applies
- Both Fruit and Tree excluded
What is Midstream Miranda? When is it okay?
It's just one long stream of Miranda: they arrest someone and interrogate w/o MW, get information then give MW and ask same question
If police intentionally use midstream miranda:
- First unwarned/unmirandized statement is excluded bc Miranda was not given
- Second warned/Mirandized statement is excluded to deter police from employing this technique
If police unintentionally use midstream Miranda
- 1st unwarned statement is excluded bc Miranda not given
- 2nd warned statement is not excluded, provided waiver was voluntary
Is the right to silence offense specific? what does that mean?
Right to silence is offense specific; cops can ask Q's about other offenses just not one arrested for
When during the process must counsel be present under the 6A?
during all formal proceedings
Kat was formally charged with Corgi trafficking and was represented by a public defender. While in jail, Kat was placed in a cell with an undercover informant, who had been instructed by law enforcement to encourage Kat to discuss the Corgi operation. Over several days, Kat made several incriminating statements to the informant, who later reported the information to the police. Kat’s defense team moves to suppress the statements, should they be suppressed?
CON: Kat’s statements should be suppressed because they were obtained in violation of her 6th Amendment right to counsel, as the informant was deliberately used to elicit statements after formal charges had been filed.
RULE: The 6th Amendment guarantees the right to counsel at all critical stages of prosecution, which includes post-charging interrogation.
Analysis: Kat had already been formally charged with Corgi trafficking and was represented by counsel, making her right to counsel attached at the time of the informant's placement in her cell. The law enforcement officers’ decision to use the informant was a deliberate attempt to circumvent her representation by counsel. This constitutes a Massiah violation, which requires the suppression of any statements made during this interaction.
Conclusion: Kat’s statements to the informant should be suppressed because they were obtained in violation of her 6th Amendment right to counsel.
When can the prosecution use statements or evidence obtained in violation?
Only if used to impeach D's testimony or cross
If D's testimony differs from confession (even if in violation of Miranda) then can be used to impeach but must be voluntary confession
What happens when D invokes right to silence under Miranda?
What happens when D invokes right to counsel under Miranda?
Right to silence: When suspect unambiguously invokes right to silence, questioning must cease; Right to silence is offense specific (cops can ask about other crimes) Cessation is not permanent
- Questioning may later resume if suspect:
1. Initiates contact with POs AND
2. Is re-Mirandized AND
3. Waives rights
Right to counsel: Must be unambiguous request, No further questioning until counsel provided; No questioning on any offense; Not offense specific
When does right to silence before questioning apply?
A reasonable person in suspects position believes that questioning was imminent so they can invoke MR to silence
How does the right to counsel differ under the 5th and 6th Amendments?
5th/Miranda: Attaches during a custodial interrogation, prior to formal charges
- Not offense-specific
- The suspect must unambiguously request an attorney for the right to attach.
FPT doesnt apply
6th: Attaches after the initiation of formal adversarial judicial proceedings (formal charges), at all critical stages of the prosecution
- Offense-specific.
- The suspect does not have to request counsel for the right to attach; it is automatic
FPT applies
Skyler was indicted for vandalizing her boyfriend's car, and a valid arrest warrant was issued. A police officer apprehended her and briefly informed her about the charges. However, the officer did not provide Miranda warnings, hoping that Skyler might make an incriminating statement on her own. He placed her in the back of his patrol car and began driving her to the police station. During the ride, Skyler spontaneously said, “I didn’t mean to do it, it was just supposed to be a funny prank. I only scratched the paint because I was mad he didn’t propose already, but it went too far.”
At the station, after receiving Miranda warnings, Skyler stated that she wished to remain silent and did not make any further statements.
Skyler filed a motion to suppress her statement made during the ride, arguing two points: first, that the statement was made without Miranda warnings, and second, that the officer intentionally elicited her confession while she was in custody.
What should the court do?
Deny the motion. Neither of Skyler's arguments justify suppression of her statement. No Miranda warnings were required because her statement was spontaneous and not the result of custodial interrogation. Additionally, the officer’s hope that Skyler might make a statement on her own does not qualify as deliberate elicitation of incriminating statements under Miranda.