Exceptions to the Exclusionary Rules

IX. Exceptions to the Exclusionary Rules a. Standing (not really an exception, more like a consideration) i. Rakas v. Illinois (pg. 1019) 1. Facts: The police spotted a car they believed was the getaway car used in a robbery. They stopped the car and ordered all the occupants out. OfÏcers searched the vehicle and found rifle shells in the locked glove compartment and a sawed-off rifle under the front passenger seat. The defendants were charged and moved to suppress the items seized. The prosecution challenged their standing to object to the search because neither the car, the shells, nor the rifle belonged to them 1. Issue: Whether a passenger in a car belonging to someone else has a legitimate expectation of privacy in the car or in items found in the car that do not belong to him 2. Court held that a passenger in a car belonging to someone else does not have a legitimate expectation of privacy in the car or in items found in the car that do not belong to him 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. a. Only people with a legitimate expectation of privacy in the place searched or thing seized may challenge a search or seizure as unconstitutional b. Must have a valid 4th Amendment claim (follows Katz holding) Court references the Jones v. New York case where that court held that a person legitimately on the premises can challenge the legality of a search a. However, this rule is too broad Rakas tries to analogize his situation with that of Jones, but it is not the same a. Jones had a key to the house he was staying in and he was keeping personal items in the home b. Jones could question the legality of the search b/c he had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the home where he was an overnight guest Rakas does not have a legitimate expectation of privacy since (no Fourth Amendment expectation of privacy) a. Rakas was simply a casual visitor b. He had no authority to exercise dominion or control of the car c. The items seized did not belong to him What is needed to establish "standing" to object to the search of a place a. Need to have a legitimate expectation of privacy in the place searched or thing seized b. The fact that a search is directed at obtaining incriminating evidence against an individual does not along give that person standing to challenge the constitutionality of a search or seizure and invoke the exclusionary rule If the Rakas defendants had claimed an interest in the property seized, would they have had standing? a. No since you still need to have a legitimate expectation of privacy Is ownership of the property seized along sufÏcient to establish standing? a. No it is not ii. Minnesota v. Carter (pg. 1035) 1. Facts: Defendants and the lessee of an apartment were sitÝng in one of its rooms bagging cocaine while they were observed by a police ofÏcer who looked through the drawn window blind. The ofÏcer then obtained a search warrant. Defendants were from Chicago and had come to the apartment for the sole purposed of spending a few hours there packaging the cocaine. They moved to suppress all evidence seized from the apartment as well as post-arrest statements. They claim the ofÏcer’s observation of their drug packaging activities was an unreasonable search in violation of the 4th Amendment 2. Issue: Whether household guests, present for commercial purposes, have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the house 3. The court references Minnesota v. Olson as a case that is similar to this one since the court there held that a guest may claim Fourth Amendment protection when in another's home 4. However, unlike Olson, Carter was not an overnight guest w/ a preexisting relationship w/ the owner, but was instead only present in the apartment for a brief time, solely for commercial purposes and he had no prior relationship w/ the owner of the apartment a. Carter's Fourth Amendment rights were not violated 5. Court held that household guests do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the house if they are present for commercial purposes a. Someone temporarily in another's home, and present to conduct a business transaction, does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the house 6. Dissent (Justice Ginsburg) a. When a homeowner invites someone into his home, whether for social or commercial purposes, the guest should share in the owner's privacy expectations b/c the two requirements established in Katz have been met: the guest exhibits an actual expectation of privacy and society recognizes this expectation as reasonable 7. The rule of Olson is that overnight guests have a reasonable expectation of privacy 8. Court goes back to the language of Katz since it goes back to the Fourth Amendment analysis 9. Why does the Dissent say the Court has veered sharply from the path of Katz? 10. Based on Carter, what guests are entitled to object to the search of homes they are visiting? a. People who have relationships with each other i. e.g. boyfriend or girlfriend b. Independent Source and Inevitable Discovery Doctrines i. Murray v. US (pg. 1052) 1. Facts: Murray and others drove vehicles into a warehouse in South Boston. They drove the vehicles out 20 minutes later and turned them over to other drivers who were arrested. The vehicles contained marijuana. After receiving this information, agents converged on the warehouse and forced entry. They observed numerous burlap-wrapped bales that were later found to contain marijuana. They applied for a search warrant without mentioning the prior entry, relying only on their surveillance. The warrant was issued and the agents reentered the warehouse and seized 270 bales of marijuana 2. Issue: Whether evidence can be admitted at trial where it was initially discovered during an unlawful search, but was later obtained lawfully and independent of the initial illegality 3. Court held that the evidence can be admitted at trial a. The independent source doctrine applies and evidence can be admitted at trial when it was initially obtained illegally but later was obtained lawfully and independently b. Evidence obtained unlawfully can be admitted at trial if there is another "independent source" from which the evidence is lawfully obtained 4. While Murray argues that such a rule will encourage unlawful police conduct, what is more likely the case is that police will have the opportunity to enter a space to ensure that their suspicions are correct 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. and by doing so they will save their own time and the court’s time by not needlessly applying for warrants. An ofÏcer with probable cause is unlikely to unlawfully enter a premises for fear the evidence he uncovers will be suppressed at trial. If an ofÏcer with probable cause enters a premises without a warrant, he has an added burden of proof to meet. a. He must show that he used no information gained from the initial illegal entry when deciding to seek a warrant, and also that no information acquired from the illegal entry was included in the warrant application. An ofÏcer without probable cause is unlikely to enter a premises because nothing he finds can be used to establish the probable cause needed to obtain a warrant. In this case, the ofÏcers likely learned that the warehouse contained drugs when they initially entered illegally. However, they also acquired this information, and the tangible evidence, when they entered legally the second time a. OfÏcers can make a deduction/conclusion based on surveillance information and obtain a search warrant The court says that there is an independent source that is unidentified and the court is willing to accept that Dissent (Justice Marshall) a. The court's holding undermines the deterrence incentive of the exclusionary rule and allows police to invade an individual's privacy before a neutral and detached magistrate determines that there is probable cause to do so b. In cases like this one, there is no evidence, except the testimony of the agents, that the second entry pursuant to the search warrant is independent from the initial illegal entry, further widening the opportunity for police misconduct The independent source exception does not deter police misconduct a. This just eliminates another hoop for police to jump through 11. The independent source exception differs from the inevitable discovery exception a. The independent source exception looks at whether there were a wealth of ways a person could have discovered the information besides the illegal means b. The inevitable discovery exception looks at people taking shortcuts when you could have taken the long way out of the maze (reaching your end goal) ii. Nix v. Williams (Second part of the Christian Burial Speech Case) - pg. 1059 1. Facts: Same as Brewer v. Williams 2. Issue: Whether the evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment may be admitted if the police would have inevitably discovered it 3. Prosecution had evidence that the police were already searching for the body of the girl (police had split the area into quadrants) a. The police were already searching for the child even before Williams told the ofÏcer where the body was 4. Court held that the evidence may properly be admitted at trial, even if discovered in violation of the Fourth Amendment, if police would have inevitably discovered it a. Evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment may be admitted if police would have inevitably discovered it 5. The court of appeals of the 8th circuit disagrees a. Need to initially look at whether the police acted in good faith i. If there is no finding of good faith, then you cannot get to inevitable circumstances b. It seems that this court just created the good faith requirement 6. The Supreme Court states that there is no good faith requirement (no threshold requirement for inevitable discovery) a. None of the evidence would be admissible since it is seldom that police conduct is done through good faith when there is a claim that constitutional rights have been violated 7. There is some deterrence in this rule even though this is not a deterrence rule c. The Attenuation Doctrine (Fruit of the Poisonous Tree) i. Introduction 1. Fruits of the Poisonous Tree Analysis a. Court links the illegal activity to direct evidence and to indirect evidence i. Indirect evidence requires a but-for analysis ii. Wong Sun v. US (pg. 1075) 1. Facts: Narcotics agents went to Toy’s laundry and broke open the door, then followed Toy to his bedroom where they arrested him. A search of the premises uncovered no narcotics, however, Toy made a statement implicating Yee. Agents entered Yee’s house and found him in the bedroom. After a discussion, Yee gave the agents tubes containing heroin. Yee then made a statement implicating Wong Sun. Agents went to Wong Sun’s apartment and searched it, but found no narcotics. Even so, Wong Sun was arrested and several days later made statement concerning narcotics transactions. The Court of Appeals found that there was no probable cause to arrest Toy iii. 2. Issue: Whether evidence obtained through illegal police conduct is admissible where it is far removed from the illegal police conduct 3. Court held that the evidence is admissible since it was so far removed from the illegal action so as to dissipate the taint of illegality 4. Rule of Law: While evidence obtained through illegal police conduct must be excluded at trial as it is "fruit of the poisonous tree," the connection between the illegal police conduct and a relevant piece of evidence can become so attenuated as to dissipate the taint, and such evidence may then be admissible 5. The illegal police conduct a. The police violated Sun's constitutional rights when they arrested him in his home 6. Sun's subsequent unsigned confession is admissible b/c after his unlawful arrest, Sun was released and returned voluntarily a few days later when he was interrogated by the agents 7. Therefore, the connection between his unlawful arrest and his statement had become so attenuated as to dissipate the taint of illegality 8. The drugs taken from Yee cannot be admitted into evidence against Toy a. Toy's statement to the police regarding Yee is inadmissible b/c the statement is a fruit of illegal police action i. The police had no authority to chase Toy into his home b. Therefore, the police only knew about Yee b/c of Toy's statement which derived from illegal police conduct c. Therefore, the statement is still tainted by the illegality and must be excluded at trial 9. Toy gets most or almost all of his evidence suppressed while Sun's evidence is admissible Brown v. Illinois (pg. 1079) 1. Facts: Brown was about to enter his apartment when he saw a stranger in his apartment. The man said, “Don’t move, you are under arrest” The man was a police ofÏcer who had broken into Brown’s apartment, searched it , then arrested Brown, all without probable cause. Later, after receiving Miranda warnings, Brown answered police questions and gave two incrimination statements. At his murder trial both statements were received in evidence. He was found guilty 2. Issue: Whether incriminating statements made following an unlawful arrest are admissible in court if the suspect was given the Miranda warnings 3. Court held that the incriminating statements are not admissible a. Miranda warnings alone do not guarantee admissibility for statements made following an unlawful arrest 4. Rule of Law: Incriminating statements made following an unlawful arrest are only admissible if the statements, in light of all relevant facts and circumstances, are sufÏciently an act of free will to purge the primary taint 5. The exclusionary rule protects 4th Amendment rights by barring admission of all evidence derived from police error or misconduct as "fruit of the poisonous tree" 6. Based on Wong Sun, statements made following an illegal arrest may be admissible if those statements are "sufÏciently acts of free will to purge the primary taint." iv. 7. Miranda warnings are aimed at safeguarding 5th Amendment rights against self-incrimination a. The warnings are not designed to deter police misconduct and violations of 4th Amendment rights b. Therefore, a statement made AFTER a Miranda warning would not violate the 5th Amendment, but might still violate the 4th Amendment 8. A blanket rule treating the Miranda warning as a universal cure for all constitutional violations would nullify the deterrent effect of the exclusionary rule a. Thus, determinations of admissibility for statements made after an illegal arrest must be made on a case-by-case basis after assessing all relevant facts and circumstances including: i. Miranda warnings; ii. The time elapsed between the arrest and the statement; and iii. The egregiousness of the police misconduct 9. Illinois court tries to analogize this case w/ Wong Sun a. However, this case is not the same 10. Prosecution bears the burden of proving such statements were based on free will a. In this case, Brown's statements were made a short time after his arrest and the ofÏcers' constitutional violations were purposeful b. The prosecution did not meet its burden and Brown's statements are inadmissible Hudson v. Michigan 1. Facts: The police obtained a search warrant for drugs and firearms at the home of Hudson. When they arrived at the house, they announced their presence, but waited only a short time –three to four seconds—before turning the knob of the unlocked front door and entering. They discovered contraband and Hudson was charged with crimes arising out of those items. Hudson moved to suppress all the inculpatory evidence claiming that the premature entry violated his 4 th Amendment rights 2. Issue: Whether a violation of the knock and announce rule means that the evidence found pursuant to the subsequent search must be excluded at trial 3. Court held that a violation of the knock and announce rule does not mean that the evidence found pursuant to the subsequent search must be excluded at trial a. If the police fail to follow the knock and announce rule, the evidence they find may still be admissible at trial 4. Rule of Law: The exclusionary rule does not apply to violations of the knock and announce rule a. There are other remedies available besides criminal claims; can file a civil claim 5. The purpose of the knock and announce rule is to protect lives and prevent injury to people and property a. However, once a warrant has been issued, an individual has no more privacy in the evidence described in the warrant b. Therefore, the exclusionary rule is not a proper remedy if the police fail to properly knock and announce their presence b/c the individual's interests that have been violated have nothing to do w/ the search and seizure of evidence 6. The exclusionary rule only applies where its ability to deter police misconduct outweighs the cost to society of letÝng criminals go a. Excluding evidence found in violation of the knock and announce rule provides little deterrence to police and has a significant detrimental effect on society b. Such a policy could lead the police to wait too long before they enter a home, increasing the chance that ofÏcers will be harmed; and what constitutes a reasonable time in specific situations would be hard for a trial court to determine 7. There is also little incentive for the police to violate the knock and announce rule since it is designed for everyone's safety, the suspect and police alike, and the police may lawfully abandon the requirement if exigent circumstances are present making delay more dangerous 8. The evidence found by the police in Hudson's home is admissible b/c the social cost of excluding it outweighs any deterrent effect the knock and announce rule may have d. Good Faith Exception i. US v. Leon 1. Facts: The police received an anonymous tip that two individuals were selling drugs out of their apartment. Based on the information from the informant, the police started an investigation and eventually submitted an afÏdavit requesting a warrant to search three residences and automobiles. A facially valid search warrant was issued and pursuant to the warrant the police conducted their search. Leon (defendant) and the other defendants filed motions to suppress the evidence obtained pursuant to the search and the district court granted the motions, holding that the afÏdavit did not establish probable cause 2. Issue: Whether evidence obtained by the police, in reasonable reliance of a search warrant which is later deemed to be invalid, must be excluded at trial 3. The court held that evidence obtained pursuant to a facially valid warrant which is later determined to be invalid need not be suppressed at trial 4. Rule of Law: Evidence obtained through reasonable reliance on a facially valid search warrant is not gathered in violation of the 4th Amendment and such evidence is admissible at trial ii. An ofÏcer is not held to the standard of a judge or a magistrate when using probable cause to obtain a warrant 1. If an ofÏcer is shown to be operating in good faith, but is mistaken as to the law based on the error of a magistrate that is not obvious to the ofÏcer, then the evidence will not be suppressed 2. OfÏcer cannot claim expertise