Source: http://aj003.weebly.com/module-8.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 16:18:30+00:00

Document:
Evidence obtained in violation of a defendant’s rights under the U.S. Constitution is generally not admissible at trial to prove guilt. This rule is known as the exclusionary rule and applies in both state and federal courts. This rule was created by the U.S. Supreme Court, and the primary rationale for the exclusionary rule is to deter law enforcement misconduct. The rule applies primarily to violations of the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments and due process, and includes violations of Miranda.
For most of U.S. history, there were no exclusionary rules. In 1914, the U.S. Supreme Court made the rule mandatory in federal courts (Weeks v. U.S.), and in 1961 the Court made the rule mandatory in state courts (Mapp v. Ohio).
The exclusionary rule applies not only to evidence obtained directly by violation of a constitutional right, but also to evidence obtained indirectly from the violation of the right. This is called the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine, or derivative evidence rule. Thus, any evidence obtained directly or indirectly from a constitutional violation must be excluded.
The U.S. Supreme Court has created exceptions to the exclusionary rule and fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine. Only three of these will be treated here.
First, even if unconstitutional police conduct leads to discovery of the evidence, the independent source exception may apply. The police must show that they also got to the evidence by an independent source that did not include a violation of rights.
Second, if the government can show that it would undoubtedly have obtained the evidence later through means independent of any constitutional violation, the evidence does not have to be excluded. This is the inevitable discovery exception.
Third is the attenuation of the taint doctrine. The government must show that events occurring between the unconstitutional police conduct and obtaining the evidence have weakened or attenuated the causal connection between the police misconduct and obtaining the evidence.
The U.S. Supreme Court and many state courts have been reluctant to apply the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine in Miranda violation cases. Usually, only the unlawfully obtained statement is excluded, and any evidence derived from or obtained by exploitation of this statement is not excluded. Some justices are in favor of modifying the scope of the exclusionary rule as the level of police misconduct is often negligible. There is also currently no regard for the seriousness of the evidence. While rules are necessary to prevent police misconduct in the “knock and announce” approach when serving a search warrant, the Court in Hudson v. Michigan (2006), ruled that serving a search warrant in this fashion does not require a certain amount of time for a person to answer. Certainly key evidence could be destroyed if a lengthy amount of time elapsed. Therefore, the exclusionary rule, the Court said, is inapplicable.
The federal exclusionary rule was made applicable to the states in 1961 in the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Mapp v. Ohio. Many states have their own exclusionary rules. These states thus have two exclusionary rules. On the other hand, a few states have limited or deleted their state exclusionary rule. The U.S. is the only country that automatically excludes all evidence obtained by police misconduct.
There are four basic reasons why the exclusionary rule would not apply. 1. if there is no violation of a constitutional rule, there is no wrong to remedy. For instance, if there has been no Fourth Amendment violation, there is no need to consider the exclusionary rule. 2, there are exceptions to the exclusionary rule. Here there has been a constitutional violation, but for policy reasons the Supreme Court has decided not to apply the exclusionary rule. An example would be the good faith exception. 3, the defendant may not have “standing” (a legal right) to raise the issue. 4, by consent or waiver, the person could give up their rights and thus be left without a remedy such as the exclusionary rule.
Like all of the first eight amendments in the Bill of Rights, the protections apply only against the government. A private citizen acting totally on their own (without police encouragement, payment, or cooperation) cannot violate those rights. Because there is no violation of rights, the exclusionary rule does not come into play. However, as found in People v. Wilkinson (2008), a private search can become a government search when the government participates in the search.
The exclusionary rule only applies in criminal cases. It does not apply in situations such as civil penalties for tax fraud.
The exclusionary rule does not apply to evidence obtained in a consent search (e.g., U.S. v. Drayton, 2002). The two regulations for the use of evidence obtained in a consent search are: proof that consent was given voluntarily and proof that consent was obtained from a person with actual or apparent authority. The person giving consent may limit the area to be searched or may revoke the consent at any time. Consent is not needed in exigent circumstances.
In Georgia v. Randolph (2006), the Court held that while cohabitants might invite persons on the property (i.e., consent to police search), no one cohabitant can override the wishes of another (i.e., another cohabitant refuses consent to search). This case drew a “fine line” for third party’s consent to search and has been interpreted differently by the courts (e.g., U.S. v. Groves, 2008).
To raise a legal issue, a person must have “standing.” They must have legal authority to raise the issue. A criminal defendant does not have standing to raise the issue of a constitutional violation or the exclusionary rule unless they had their rights violated. Violation of someone else’s rights does not give standing. In a Fourth Amendment search case, the defendant must show that he or she had an expectation of privacy in the place searched. For instance, a mere passenger in a car may not have standing to challenge the search of the car.
If a person abandons property, they give up their rights to challenge government searches or seizures of that property. They have given up their Fourth Amendment rights by abandoning the property. However, if the abandonment (e.g., throwdown of illegal drugs) is the result of police misconduct (i.e., illegal arrest), the abandonment doctrine will not be applied. A person who denies ownership of property (including contraband) will be deemed to have abandoned the property. In some instances, property is deemed abandoned if it is left after the expiration of the rental agreement for a room, home, or locker. Evidence is also frequently found in abandoned vehicles, and such evidence is deemed to be abandoned.
When a person places items in their trash or garbage and sets it on the curb to be picked up, they have abandoned the property. If the police seize and search that trash, there has been no Fourth Amendment violation.
The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the Fourth Amendment does not apply to government intrusions into open fields (i.e., pastures, range land). A piece of land does not have to literally be a “field” to qualify. A swamp or forest, for example, could be an open field for Fourth Amendment purposes. Thus, a warrantless entry by police into open fields is not a Fourth Amendment violation. However, the curtilage (the area immediately around the house such as the lawn, swimming pool, etc.) does have Fourth Amendment protection.
There are situations where rights were violated but the courts will not apply the exclusionary rule. In these cases, the courts have concluded that the officers acted in a reasonable fashion and the social cost of the loss of relevant reliable evidence outweighs the deterrent effect of excluding the evidence. In U.S. v. Leon, the Supreme Court refused to suppress evidence obtained pursuant to a valid search warrant because a magistrate issued the warrant and a reasonable police officer could believe the warrant was valid. Also in U.S. v. McClain (2005), the good faith doctrine was upheld on this basis. In other cases, if police acted reasonably but made an honest mistake, the Supreme Court has not found a Fourth Amendment violation or has created an exception to the exclusionary rule.
There are numerous types of proceedings where the exclusionary rule does not apply. It does not apply in civil cases, grand jury proceedings, or probation and parole revocation hearings. Further, any time there is no violation of the Fourth Amendment or other constitutional right, there is no occasion to use the exclusionary rule.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.