Remedies for 4th Amendment Violations

Limited Extensions of Leon

1) Reasonable Reliance on Legislative Acts: 2) Clerical Errors and Reliance on Court Clerical Personnel 3) Good Faith Applied: Negligence Attenuated From the Arrest or Search 4) Good Faith—New Rules Cannot Be Retroactively Applied to Exclude

Limitations on Exclusion

1. "Good Faith"-Reasonable Reliance on the Decision of Magistrates and Others 2. Good Faith Exception and Warrantless Searches

Exclusionary Rule

1. The exclusionary rule, in its broadest conception, provides that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment must be excluded from trial. 2. Presumption is that if there is a violation of the 4th amendment then the evidence is suppressed (Gov. must then show why the exclusionary rule should not apply)

Good Faith Exception

1. U.S. v. Leon 2. Exclusionary Rule is a ct.-made rule 3. Exception to the Exception (where exclusion might be a remedy)

Good Faith Exception: Herring v. U.S. (Negligent bookkeeping on behalf of an officer led another officer to rely on a faulty outstanding warrant to arrest.)

Holding - When police mistakes are the result of negligence such as that described here, rather than systematic error or reckless disregard of constitutional requirements, any marginal deterrence does not pay its way. In such a case, the criminal should not "go free because the constable has blundered."

Establishing a Violation of a Personal 4th Amendment Right: Presence in a Hotel or an Apartment

Hotels- Standing because you are paying and have the lessor and lessee privity 1) If the person is spending the night 2) If the person briefly visits for, say a drug deal or visit, then no standing Apartment: Depends... if you are only there temporarily (i.e. just to bag drugs) then you do not have an expectation of privacy, thus no standing

Application of Katz in the "standing" context vs. Katz in the "search" context:

In the search context, property concepts (i.e. "trespass") are NOT controlling though they are still highly relevant. However, in the standing context the Katz "reasonable expectation of privacy" analysis seems to focus solely on whether the accused had a possessory or property interest in THE PLACE SEARCHED !!!!!

Establishing a Violation of a Personal 4th Amendment Right: Target Theory is out

Just because a person is a target of the investigation doesn't mean you have the right to challenge a search.

Establishing a Violation of a Personal 4th Amendment Right: Rawlings v. Ky. (Boyfriend who dumped his drugs in girlfriend's purse did not have right to challenge search of purse.)

No bailment created by this action—cannot have a bailment w/o consent/can't force a bailment on someone. Holding - The Court held that Rawlings did not have standing to contest the search of the purse because Rawlings did not have a legitimate expectation of privacy in the area that was searched, the purse.

Use of D testimony at trial: Standing?

No. Example- Defendant can testify at suppression hearing that his briefcase which was searched by police was full of drugs and his, this statement cannot be used him as an admission of guilt at trial

Good Faith Exception: Exclusionary Rule is a ct.-made rule

1) "The exclusionary rule is designed to deter police misconduct rather than to punish errors of judges and magistrates." 2) Applying the exclusionary rule to evidence obtained by a faulty warrant would have no deterrent on the issuing judge or magistrate because they are not members of the law enforcement team and have no stake in the outcome of a particular criminal prosecution.

Good Faith Exception: U.S. v. Leon (In Leon there was a valid warrant that was issued, but the warrant itself was bad because the affidavit was insufficient to establish PC)

1) Because there was a warrant that was issued the burden fell to the Δ. 2) The police here were in a quandary because they did what they were supposed to do and relied on the magistrate in giving then the warrant

Establishing a Violation of a Personal 4th Amendment Right: Rules on cars, drivers, and passengers

1) Defendants who had been given keys to the truck, who had permission to use it, had the right to challenge the search of the truck 2) A defendant who knowingly possess a stolen car has no legitimate expectation of privacy in the car 3) Where the owner of the car was absent at the time the car was stopped and searched, he had the right to object to the search but not the stop 4) If a person disassociates himself from certain property, then he loses standing to object to the search 5) If a person denies ownership in property then he disassociates himself = no standing

Good Faith Exception: Exception to the Exception (where exclusion might be a remedy)

1) If the judge was misled in an affidavit (Police lied) 2) If the judge wholly abandoned his judicial role (Not neutral and detached) 3) The warrant totally lacked in probable cause that reliance is unreasonable (the "it's just so shitty" rule). (The PC in the warrant is shitty; No reasonably well trained officer could rely on the warrant) 4) Facially deficient problem in warrant (Warrant not completed properly, docs unattached, support docs not properly referenced, etc.)

Pigeon Hole Approach

1) Inevitable or Ultimate Discovery 2) Independent Source 3) Attenuation

Use of Illegally Obtained Evidence for Impeachment Purposes

1) Opening the door 2) Cross-examination 3) Impeachment of defense witness

Establishing a Violation of a Personal 4th Amendment Right: Presence in the Home of Another

A person that is an invitee has an interest in the place (friends home) so they have standing because of their reasonable expectation of privacy

Pigeon Hole Approach: Independent Sources

Allows introduction of evidence discovered initially during an unlawful search if the evidence is later discovered through source that is untainted by the initial illegality.

Establishing a Violation of a Personal 4th Amendment Right: U.S. v. Payner (IRS officials "stole" briefcase of bank official and searched it. They found evidence therein against someone else, the defendant, and used it.)

Defendant did not have standing as it was not his briefcase.

Pigeon Hole Approach: Attenuation

Exclusionary rule does not apply unless there is a nexus between the illegal conduct and the contraband.

Pigeon Hole Approach: Inevitable or Ultimate Discovery

For the exception to apply, the government must show that the illegally obtained evidence would have been discovered through legitimate means independent of the official misconduct. Nix v. Williams: The court excluded the statement (from improper interrogation) but allowed the body because lawful police conduct was already underway which would have located the body. The exclusionary rule did not apply here.

What does Herring mean?

One: Does the ER deter under these facts? This is the Herring approach Two: Pigeon Hole approach- Does situation fall into established exception

Establishing a Violation of a Personal 4th Amendment Right: Rakas v. Illinois (passengers in a car that is stopped)

Passengers in car do NOT have standing to challenge search of car. Court adopts Katz test in standing context, but with a strict property twist: 1) The fact that one is legitimately in or on the premises of property is insufficient to assert standing 2) One must have a property/possessory interest in the place searched or the thing seized. 3) Possessory/Property interest = "standing"

Establishing a Violation of a Personal 4th Amendment Right: Standing

The question of "standing" is determined by whether the person, seeking to suppress the evidence, has had his own Fourth Amendment rights violated.

Challenging the Truthfulness of the Warrant Application:

There must be allegations of a) deliberate falsehood or b) reckless disregard for the truth, They must also have had a material effect on the issuance of the warrant Those allegations must be accompanied by an offer of proof.

Exclusion and Knock & Announce Violation

Violating knock-and-announce does not invoke the exclusionary rule Only if you willfully violate it then it may stay out.

Use of D testimony at trial: Use of third party testimony?

Yes. If a defendant calls a witness to testify at the suppression hearing (a friend who testifies the briefcase is not the defendant's) the government is not precluded from using the testimony against the defendant.

Use of D testimony at trial: Impeachment?

Yes. a) A defendant who testifies at a suppression hearing that he owned the briefcase full of drugs will run into difficulty if the evidence is not suppressed and he takes stand to testify that briefcase is not his. b) The statement can be used to impeach on as a prior inconsistent statement

Good Faith Exception and Warrantless Searches

a. Leon applies in the context of HAVING A SEARCH WARRANT b. Generally, Leon NOT available absent warrant