Test 3 Study Guide: Ch.9-13

U.S. v. Drayton 536 U.S. 194-2002

"... police officers act in full accordance with the law when they ask citizens for consent. It reinforces the rule of law for the citizen to advise the police of his or her own wishes and for the police to act in reliance on that understanding. When this exchange takes place, it dispels the inferences of coercion."

Incriminating Statement

"Any statement or conduct from which guilt of the crime can be inferred" [People v. Stanton, 158 N.E.2d 47 (Ill. 1959)].

Confession

A direct acknowledgment of guilt; generally viewed the same as a guilty plea in open court.

Photographic Array

A group of photographs shown to witnesses or the victim of a crime for identification purposes.

Exclusionary Rule

A judicial rule that makes evidence obtained in violation of the US Constitution, state, or federal laws, or court rules inadmissible.

Heien v. North Carolina 737 S.E.2d 351-N.C. 2012

A police officer stopped a car with one working brake light, in the mistaken belief that North Carolina law requires cars to have two working brake lights. A subsequent search of the car uncovered illegal drugs and the driver was convicted. On appeal, the defendant contended the drug evidence should be suppressed. The North Carolina Supreme Court held an honest mistake by the officer satisfied the individualized suspicion requirement because the officer reasonably believed the defendant was breaking the traffic laws.

Courtroom Identifications

A prescribed series of steps used during a trial to identify the defendant as the person who committed the crime or was a party to the crime charged.

Private search

A search by a private person that is not subject to the exclusionary rule.

Work-related searches

A search of the worker's desk and workstation for necessary records or equipment so that another employee can fill in for the absent worker or the employer can check for theft or fraud.

State v. Lawson Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, 409 F.3d 744-2005

A search warrant was issued even though the affidavit submitted did not state all the facts as they actually occurred and were known to the officer preparing the affidavit. As a result, the search warrant did not satisfy the probable cause requirement. The U.S. Court of Appeals held the good-faith exception inapplicable.

United States v. Duong 336 F. Supp. 2d 967-D.N.D. 2004

A state patrol officer discovered a car overturned in a highway ditch and was unsuccessful in identifying and locating the owner. The officer conducted an inventory search of the vehicle and found hundreds of pounds of marijuana. At trial, the defendants moved to suppress the evidence. The court refused, holding that the vehicle was abandoned and that the driver had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the vehicle.

Evidence Obtained in a Consent Search

A warrantless search of premises is permissible if undertaken with the valid consent of the occupant. Admissibility of evidence obtained in a consent search has two requirements: ¡Proof that consent was given voluntarily; and ¡Proof that consent was obtained from a person with "actual or apparent authority" to grant the consent. The person giving consent may limit the search area or, after giving consent, may revoke the consent. Consent is not needed to enter premises if there are exigent circumstances that exist.

Many States Now have Two Sets of Exclusionary Rules

All states must follow the federal Mapp rule in determining the admissibility of evidence. ¡It is not uncommon for state courts to impose additional requirements in interpreting that state's constitution or statutes. State statutes, by themselves, could also alter the federal Mapp rule and impose a stricter standard in a given area of the law. The federal rule is defined by the U.S. Supreme Court and other federal courts, whereas the state exclusionary rule is defined and required by the state supreme court (and sometimes by state statutes). ¡Evidence to be used in criminal cases in federal courts in all states would be judged by the federal Mapp rule.

Inevitable discovery rule

An exception to the exclusionary rule where illegally discovered evidence would certainly have been discovered illegally.

Showups

An identification procedure in which only one subject is shown to witnesses or the victim of a crime.

Lineups

An identification procedure in which six or more persons are shown to witnesses or the victim of a crime.

Oliver v. United States 466 U.S. 170, 180, 104 S.Ct. 1735, 1742 n.11-1984

An open field "include[s] any unoccupied or undeveloped area outside of the curtilage. An open field needs to be neither 'open' nor a 'field' as those terms are used in common speech."

Open field

An unoccupied or undeveloped area open of the curtilage; objects found there may be used as evidence.

Derivative Evidence

Another term for the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine.

Michigan v. Chesternut 486 U.S. 567, 108 S.Ct. 1975-1988

As he was being followed by police, the defendant discarded pills that an officer believed contained codeine. Defendant was arrested and found to be in possession of heroin and a hypodermic needle. The U.S. Supreme Court held that the defendant "was not unlawfully seized during the initial police pursuit" and affirmed the use of the pills, heroin, and needle as evidence. ¡The police conduct was not "so intimidating" that the defendant could reasonably have believed he was not free to disregard the police presence.

United States v. Ritter Third Circuit Court of Appeals, 416 F.3d 256-3rd Cir. 2005

Believing that only one dwelling existed on the defendant's property, federal officers executed a search warrant. Finding several dwellings on the property, the officers searched them all and found illegal drugs. On appeal, the court held that the officers were required to stop the search after the discovery and that the honest mistake rule did not apply to evidence seized after the officers knew of the mistake. Because it was not clear when the illegal drugs were found, the case was remanded.

Closely regulated business

Businesses that are subject to careful oversight by-laws and codes, such as liquor stores, firearms, dealers, coal mines, and pharmacies.

Where Does the Exclusionary Rule Not Apply?

Civil cases and proceedings. In situations where consent was given by a party withstanding. Evidence obtained in a private search by a private person. ¡A private search can become a government search when the government enters participation in the search.

Other Areas Where the Exclusionary Rule Does Not Apply

Common carriers; U.S. Customs Service; Grand jury proceedings; Probation or parole revocation; Searches by probation or parole officers; Eyewitness testimony of a witness to robbery; Evidence obtained in foreign countries by foreign officials; and Other investigative procedures.

When is a Search Private?

Courts have adopted the following requirements to determine whether a search is purely private: ¡The evidence was obtained by a private person acting in a private capacity. ÷Held private: Armstrong v. State, 46 Se.3d 589 (Fla. App. 2010) ÷Held not private: State v. Smith, 782 N.W.2d 913 (Neb. 2010) ¡The idea or initiative to obtain the evidence originated with the private person. ÷Held private: Limpuangthip v. United States, 932 A.2d 1137 (D.C. 2007) ÷Held not private: State v. Madison, 760 N.W.2d 370 (S.D. 2009) Courts have adopted the following requirements to determine whether a search is purely private: ¡The police or government agent did not participate in obtaining the evidence. ÷Held private: Dawson v. State, 106 S.W.3d 388 (Tex. App. 2003) ÷Held not private: United States v. Booker, 728 F.3d 535 (6th Cir. 2013)

School Searches of Backpacks, Cell Phones, and Lockers

Courts require that a warrantless search of a student at school pass a two-pronged test: -The initial search must be "justified at its inception;" and -The actual search must be reasonably related in scope to the basis of the suspicion in the first place.

Evidence Discovered in Open Fields

Curtilage is that area close to a home where persons assert a right of privacy. The protection of the Fourth Amendment extends to the home and to the curtilage. Courts have extended Fourth Amendment protections to the curtilage and have defined it "by reference to the factors that determine whether an individual reasonably may expect that an area immediately adjacent to the home will remain private." There is a high degree of privacy in the curtilage of a one-family dwelling that is fenced in so as to be protected from observation by people passing. The degree of privacy is much lower, however, in the curtilage of a fifty-unit apartment building because all occupants of the building can use the common area available to them. The extent of the curtilage involving driveways and walkways on the edge of a defendant's property is frequently discussed.

Good Faith and Changes in the Law

Difficulties with police compliance with Fourth Amendment requirements are exacerbated by court decisions, mainly those of the U.S. Supreme Court, that change the rules under which the police operate. The good-faith exception can be used to solve this dilemma for the police.

Composite Sketches

Drawings made by an artist or with an Identi-Kit for use in identification.

Murray v. United States 487 U.S. 533-1988

Evidence discovered by an independent source should be excluded just because it was also discovered by improper police conduct. The search authorized by the warrant after illegal entry into a warehouse where federal agents saw bales of marijuana was deemed independent.

Evidence Obtained in a Private Search

Evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment is generally inadmissible under the exclusionary rule. ¡This prohibition applies to mistakes or misconduct by the police and other officials in the executive branch of government. The exclusionary rule does not apply to private persons. Evidence obtained by private persons, even if obtained illegally, is not subject to the exclusionary rule. A private search can be transformed into a government search if the government participates in the search. Searches by private security guards in the course of their employment are generally not Fourth Amendment violations. Burdeau v. McDowell 256 U.S. 465 (1921)

Fruit of the Poisonous tree rule

Evidence obtained legally through the use of evidence obtained illegally.

Examples of Right of Privacy

Examples of situations in which persons can have a reasonable expectation of privacy include: ¡Employees in the workplace; ¡Persons renting hotel rooms, storage lockers, or rental vehicles using their own names; ¡Overnight guests in another person's home; and ¡Owners of a vehicle (not passengers) in the vehicle.

Origin of the Exclusionary Rule

For much of U.S. history, relevant and reliable evidence was admissible in criminal prosecutions even if obtained illegally. Beginning in 1914, with Weeks v. United States in federal cases and 1961 in state cases with Mapp v. Ohio, the U.S. Supreme Court required courts to exclude such evidence-that is, declare the evidence inadmissible if it was obtained unconstitutionally. The U.S. Supreme Court has also ruled the exclusionary rule for violations of court-fashioned rules, like the famous Miranda rule. -In the Miranda case, the Supreme Court adopted a rule for determining the minimum safeguards that must be used by police before obtaining a confession or other incriminating statements. If these safeguards are not followed, any resulting confession or incriminating statement may be deemed inadmissible.

Abandoned Real Estate

For purposes of real estate law, real estate cannot ever be abandoned in the literal sense. However, courts have found that real estate can be abandoned for Fourth Amendment purposes. ¡To prove a structure has been abandoned, police must produce evidence that would lead a reasonable person to believe the structure has been abandoned.

Administrative functions

Functions such as screening at airports and courthouses and many fire, health, housing, and school services.

Abandoned Property

If by conduct or words the defendant shows he or she has relinquished the expectation privacy in property, the object can be used as evidence. The U.S. Supreme Court defined the legal concept of abandoned property in their 1989 decision in United States v. Thomas.

Special Needs and the Fourth Amendment

In 1989, the Supreme Court identified "special needs" governments may have which require a search for purposes unrelated to law enforcement. The Courts have held that these types of searches do not require probable cause or a search warrant.

National Treasury Employees v. Von Raab 489 U.S. 656-1989

In 1989, the U.S. Supreme Court sustained a U.S. Customs requirement that employees seeking transfer or promotion must submit to a urinalysis. The Court identified three compelling governmental interests which justify testing: -Ensuring certain employees "have unimpeachable integrity;" -Enhancing public safety; and -"Protecting truly sensitive information."

Random Drug Testing of Student-Athletes

In 1995, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld random, suspicionless urine testing of public school students participating in interscholastic sports, citing "special needs, beyond the normal need for law enforcement." The considerations for approving reasonableness: -Student-athletes have a reduced expectation of privacy. -The intrusion on the student-athletes' privacy by urine collection was "negligible." -The government (school authorities) had an important and compelling interest in curbing drug use by student-athletes as part of the effort to curb drug use.

Drug Testing on Reasonable Suspicion

Law officers have a diminished expectation of privacy because of their employment. Cases in which drug testing was held to be constitutionally based on reasonable suspicion: -A police officer for whom there was reasonable suspicion of drug use. -An airman in Air Force Flight Operations about whom an anonymous telephone call had been received claiming he had recently used marijuana.

Examples of Denial of Ownership

Luggage at an airport; A garment bag at a train station; Luggage in the trunk of the car; A satchel the defendant hid after a car accident; and An apartment.

Abandoned Motor Vehicles

Many states have statutes that define when a vehicle is legally abandoned. ¡For example, Section 342.40(i) of the Wisconsin Statutes provides that if a vehicle is left unattended on a public highway or on private or public property for more than 48 hours, it is deemed abandoned and "constitutes a public nuisance."

Fire, Health, and Housing Inspections

Most property owners consent to inspections by health, fire, and housing inspectors. -If a homeowner or the owner of commercial property refuses to allow an inspection, however, a search warrant must be obtained, and the owner of the property cannot be punished for refusal to consent to a search. Some states have passed laws or have established procedures where area search warrants may be issued when health and sanitation risks exist.

Denial Ownership as a Form of Abandonment

Persons who deny ownership of the property to a law enforcement officer relinquish their right of privacy in the property and do not later have the standing to challenge the use of evidence obtained from the property.

Throwaway as a Type of Abandonment

Persons who flee the police with illegal drugs or other contraband on their person often throw away what can be very incriminating evidence. If the throwaway is a voluntary abandonment, courts allow the object to be used as evidence. If the throwaway is the direct or indirect product of an illegal police stop of other improper police conducts, courts generally forbid the use of the throwaway item as evidence.

California v. Hodori 499 U.S. 621, 111 S.Ct. 1547-1991

Police officers observed several youths who ran at the approach of their unmarked car. The officers chased them on foot. Prior to being tackled, one of the youths threw crack cocaine to the ground. The U.S. Supreme Court held that the cocaine could be used as evidence against the youth. ¡"The cocaine...was in this case not the fruit of a seizure..."

Fahy v. Connecticut Supreme Court of the United States, 375 U.S. 85,84 S.Ct. 229-1963

Police removed evidence from the defendant's garage without a search warrant or the defendant's consent. The defendant later confessed and was convicted. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the conviction. -The defendant did not have a "chance to show that his admissions were induced by being confronted with the illegally seized evidence." -The Court also noted "the cumulative prejudicial effect of this evidence upon the conduct of the defense at trial."

Standing

Possession of the necessary relationship to an issue to be permitted to raise that issue in a court of law.

Drug Testing of Law Officers

Private businesses may conduct drug testing of employees without fear of Fourth Amendment rights because it does not apply to searches by private persons. -However, the Fourth Amendment does apply to government employees. Many federal, state and local governmental agencies now require suspicionless drug testing of: -Employees who have a secret and top-secret security clearance; -detectives, police officers, and guards; -Firefighters and fire protection specialists; -Nurses; -Employees who handle or inspect hazardous wastes; -Motor vehicle, heavy equipment, and locomotive operators; -Brake-switching employees; and -Employees required to carry firearms or whose duties are fraught with risks.

Abandoned Property

Property that has been deserted or thrown away and thereby disclaim interest in it; may be used as evidence against the former owner.

Security Screenings at Public Buildings and Places

Since 9/11, security screening has been extended to courthouses, public buildings, sporting events, rock concerts, and other public functions. Illegal weapons and illegal objects confiscated in such screenings may be held inadmissible if a defense lawyer can establish that the "security officers looked to considerations other than safety in conducting the screening." Courts have held that a random search of checked luggage at an airport does not violate the Fourth Amendment.

Texas v. Brown 460 U.S. 730-1983

The Court held that for the doctrine to apply the officer must: ¡Make a lawful intrusion or otherwise be properly positioned from which he can view a particular area; ¡The officer must discover incriminating evidence "inadvertently"; and ¡It must be immediately apparent to the police the items they observe are evidence of a crime.

Burdeau v. McDowell 256 U.S. 465-1921

The Court held that the Fourth Amendment does not apply to private searches. Evidence obtained by private persons, even if the result of illegal conduct, is not subject to the Exclusionary Rule. If the illegally obtained materials end up in the hands of the prosecution who can show "clean hands" the evidence is admissible.

Vernonia School District v. Action 515 U.S. 646-1995

The Court stated that three factors must be considered when determining whether a search is reasonable: -The students' legitimate expectations of privacy; -The intrusiveness of the search; and -The importance of the school's needs that serve as the basis for the search.

Evidence Discovered in Good Faith or by Honest Mistake

The Leon good-faith exception permits the use of evidence obtained through the use of a search warrant containing a technical error that does not violate a fundamental constitutional right of a suspect. The warrant and affidavits given to obtain such evidence must be sufficient so that an "objectively reasonable" officer would rely on the warrant that was issued.

Involuntary Statements and Due Process

The Supreme Court's holding in Patane does not apply if the statements made by the defendant are involuntary. -If the police have improperly coerced the defendant into making the statements that led to physical evidence, the holding does not apply. There are four constitutional violations that can lead to incriminating statements and the discovery of physical evidence: ¡Unlawful searches or seizures in violation of the Fourth Amendment; ¡Involuntary confessions or statements that violate the Due Process Clause; ¡Violations of the Sixth Amendment; and ¡Violations of the Miranda rule.

Nix v. Williams 467 U.S. 431-1984

The U.S. Supreme Court adopted the inevitable discovery rule as an exception to the exclusionary rule. Defendant was questioned without the consent or presence of his attorney, and the police used his statements to find the body of a girl whom the defendant was suspected of murder. The Court concluded that search parties that were searching the area where a body was found would have found the body in a short time without the defendant's directions.

"Knock-and-Talk"

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that "mere police questioning does not constitute a seizure" regardless of whether the motive is to investigate the suspect for criminal activity. Police officers can go to a person's front door and "knock-and-talk" to a person. ¡Incriminating statements derived from those discussions are admissible. "Knock-and-talk" sessions can change from consensual to interrogation.

School Searches on Reasonable Suspicion

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the public interests would be "best served by a Fourth Amendment standard of reasonableness that stops short of probable cause." The general rule in the United States is to permit school officials in school and quasi-school settings to conduct searches of students on reasonable suspicion.

Stone v. California 376 U.S. 483-1964

The U.S. Supreme Court held that a person's expectation of privacy is not limited to permanent residences, but includes rental homes and automobiles.

Georgia v. Randolph 547 U.S. 103-2006

The U.S. Supreme Court held that an objection to a search by a co-inhabitant makes search non-consensual, even though the other inhabitant gave consent to the search. The court held that, while there was a "fine line" drawn that a third party consent will be recognized, it can only occur if this is within the wishes of the other cohabitant.

United States v. Dunn 480 U.S. 294, 107 S.Ct. 1134-1987

The U.S. Supreme Court held that curtilage questions should be resolved with particular reference to four factors: ¡The proximity to the home of the area claimed to be curtilage; ¡Whether the area is included within an enclosure surrounding the home; ¡The nature of the uses to which the area is put; and ¡The steps taken by the resident to protect the area from observation by people passing by.

United States v. Leon 104 S.Ct. 3405-1984

The U.S. Supreme Court held that evidence obtained in "good faith" reliance on search warrant by police officers will not be excluded. Police officers executed a search warrant that they believed to be valid but was defective. The evidence obtained under the defective warrant was ruled to be admissible because the police believed in good faith that the search warrant was valid.

Maryland v. Harrison 107 S.Ct. 1013

The U.S. Supreme Court held that evidence obtained under "honest mistake" by police will not be excluded. The police reasonably believed they were in the right apartment and did not realize their mistake until after finding heroin, cash, and drug paraphernalia in the defendant's apartment.

Wong Sun v. United States 371 U.S. 471-1963

The U.S. Supreme Court held that if sufficient time passes after an illegal search or seizure to break the connection between the illegal acts and evidence obtained, the evidence is cleared of the "taint" of the illegal acts and can be admitted.

Michigan v. Tucker 417 U.S. 4333-1974

The U.S. Supreme Court held that involuntary or coerced statements violate the Due Process Clause, and both the statements and physical or testimonial evidence derived from the statements must be suppressed.

United States v. Herring 555 U.S. 135-2009

The U.S. Supreme Court held that the exclusionary rule was not appropriate in a situation where officer's conduct in making the unlawful arrest was only negligent and based on incorrect information supplied to them by a county clerk. The police, in that case, failed to check the arrest warrant was still valid but acted in good faith in making the arrest.

United States v. Patane 124 S.Ct. 2620-2004

The U.S. Supreme Court held the Miranda rule does not make the exclusionary rule applicable to physical evidence obtained from voluntary statements made without the Miranda warning. -The Miranda rule "is a prophylactic employed to protect against violations of the Self-Incrimination Clause... The Miranda rule is not a code of police conduct, and police do not violate the Constitution (or even the Miranda rule, for that matter) by mere failure to warn."

Davis v. United States 131 S.Ct. 2419-2011

The U.S. Supreme Court held the police acted in strict compliance with a binding precedent, and their behavior in conducting the search of the vehicle after arresting the defendant was not wrongful.

Hester v. United States 265 U.S. 57-1924

The U.S. Supreme Court refused to extend the Fourth Amendment to sights seen in an open field. Government agents trespassing on the defendant's land saw the defendant running away and throwing contraband to the ground in open fields. The court that the contraband could be used as evidence to obtain a conviction against the defendant.

United States v. Janis 428 U.S. 433-1978

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule does not apply to civil cases. Even if the evidence is suppressed due to improper law enforcement conduct, it can be used to obtain a civil judgment against a defendant.

Honest mistake rule

The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling that courts must "allow some latitude for honest mistakes that are made by officers in the dangerous and difficult process of making arrests and executing search warrants."

Curtilage

The area close to a home where persons have a right to privacy.

"Special needs" of government

The basic government requirements of safety, health, education, and concern for the well-being of the society as a whole.

United States v. Day 591 F.3d 670-4th Cir. 2010

The court held that a search of a defendant's person by "armed security officers" was a private search, even though under Virginia state law the officers were given the power to make arrests.

People v. Wilkinson 78 Cal. Rptr. 3d 501-Cal. 2008

The defendant in a burglary case moved to suppress evidence because it had been taken by another person in cooperation with the police. The motion was denied. On appeal, the court reversed, holding that while the other person's original entry into the defendant's room was a purely private search, a subsequent search was "instigated" by the police and lost its private status. The evidence was suppressed.

State v. Knapp 666 N.W.2d 881-2003

The defendant in a murder trial moved to suppress his pre-Miranda warning statements and the physical evidence seized as a result of those statements. The Wisconsin Supreme Court held that the physical evidence must be excluded as the fruit of a poisonous tree. -Since the violation was intentional, the court concluded that the deterrent effect of the exclusionary rule required suppression of the evidence.

Hudson v. Michigan 547 U.S. 586-2006

The defendant moved to suppress evidence claiming that the police failed to wait a sufficient time after announcing their presence. The U.S. Supreme Court concluded that the exclusionary rule is inappropriate for knock-and-announce violations. -The only issue on appeal was the appropriateness of the exclusionary sanction. -The exclusionary rule is most appropriate in the case of warrantless searches. -The questioned evidence was not discovered as a result of the violation. -The deterrent effect of the rule is difficult to evaluate.

Exceptions to Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine

The derivative evidence rule, as the name suggests, applies only if the challenged evidence is directly and exclusively derived from the improper police conduct such as an unlawful search, not necessarily from pure negligence. -For example, say the police unlawfully enter a home and find a key to a storage locker. If they then use the key to unlock the locker and find illegal drugs, those drugs will be suppressed by the court. 1. The independent source doctrine: -Improper police conduct may lead to the discovery of evidence, while another proper source leads to the same evidence. -If the proper source of the evidence is independent-that is, not tainted by the improper conduct-the evidence is admissible. 2. The Inevitable Discovery Rule -If police error or police misconduct has tainted some evidence, the evidence and also derivative evidence can be suppressed and not used in a criminal trial. -If it can be shown that the challenged derivative evidence would have certainly been discovered by legitimate police efforts in the future, it would be admissible under the inevitable discovery rule. 3. The attenuation, or passage of time, rule: -Where improper police conduct occurs and shortly thereafter the conduct leads to the discovery of other evidence, the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine reasonably concludes a connection exists between the improper conduct and the other evidence. -Where a significant period of time passes between the improper and the new evidence, the "taint" from the improper conduct can be dissipated or eliminated.

Good faith exception

The exception that makes admissible evidence that is obtained under a search warrant that has a technical error unknown to the law officers executing the warrant.

The Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine

The exclusionary rule applies not only to evidence obtained directly as a result of improper police conduct but also to evidence obtained indirectly from that improper conduct. Evidence derived from initial improper conduct is called the derivative evidence rule, also known as the fruit of the poisonous tree rule. The derivative evidence rule applies only if the challenged evidence is directly and exclusively derived from improper police conduct. The U.S. Supreme Court has developed three exceptions to the doctrine where police misconduct has not irrevocably "tainted" the challenged evidence: -The independent source doctrine; -The inevitable discovery rule; and -The passage of time rule (attenuation).

The Exclusionary Rule

The exclusionary rule excludes evidence that was improperly or illegally obtained. The exclusionary rule seeks to discourage improper or illegal investigative procedures by law enforcement officers. Improper procedures by law enforcement officers (both state and federal officers) can adversely affect a criminal defendant's statutory or constitutional rights, such as the right to due process. The principal U.S. Constitutional rights threatened by police misconduct are the Fourth and the Fifth Amendments. Other constitutional protections are secured for both federal and state defendants under the due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

Application in Criminal Cases

The exclusionary rule forbids the use of evidence tainted or soiled by improper or illegal police conduct in criminal cases. Such evidence, however, can be used in civil cases.

Miranda and the Poisonous Tree Rule

The fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine places emphasis on improper police conduct. -Where the initial improper conduct is an illegal search and seizure, the improper police conduct must be deterred in order to accomplish the purpose of the Fourth Amendment. Where the improper police conduct involves the Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination, such as a failure to give a Miranda warning, courts have been less consistent in applying the poisonous tree doctrine. The U.S. Supreme Court stated the stole goal of the Self-Incrimination Clause is to protect against compelled, self-incriminating statements. Thus, unlike unreasonable searches or actual violations of the Due Process Clause or the Self-Incrimination Clause, there is, with respect to a mere failure to warn, nothing to deter. -However, if the arrest itself is unlawful, and thus an "unreasonable seizure" under the Fourth Amendment, subsequent statements leading to physical evidence may well invoke the poisonous tree doctrine.

The Limits of the Exclusionary Rule

The goal of the exclusionary rule is to deter improper police conduct. ¡In theory, this benefits all citizens. ¡In most cases, the direct beneficiary of the rule is someone who would be convicted if the evidence were not excluded. ¡The rule can thus result in dangerous criminals going free. The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly held that "the [exclusionary] rule has been [and is] restricted to those areas where its remedial objectives are thought most efficaciously served."

Massiah limitation

The holding that after a person has been charged with a crime, law officers cannot question the person or otherwise obtain incriminating statements regarding that crime without the person's attorney present.

The Honest Mistake Rule

The honest mistake rule is the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling that courts must "allow some latitude for honest mistakes that are made by officers in the dangerous and difficult process of making arrests and executing search warrants."

Evidence Obtained From Garbage or Trash

The owners of trash receptacles kept in a home or a garage have Fourth Amendment constitutional protection while the receptacles are located in such places. ¡Evidence obtained from these places without valid consent or a search warrant is suppressed. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that defendants can have "no reasonable expectation of privacy in ... the plastic garbage bags left on or at the side of the public street."

Plain view or Open View Doctrine

The plain view or open view doctrine is the principle that if a law officer is where he or she has a right to be and sees evidence or contraband in plain view, then the evidence may be seized and used in a criminal trial. The plain view is not limited to visual observations. ¡Any of the five human senses may provide information that makes it "immediately apparent" to the police that the object is evidence of a crime.

Plain view or open view doctrine

The principle that if a law officer is where he or she has a right to be and sees evidence or contraband in plain view, then the evidence may be seized and used in a criminal trial.

Miranda requirements

The procedural safeguards established by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1966.

Voluntariness test

The requirement that confessions, incriminating statements, and consent by voluntary and freely given and not obtained by means that overwhelmed the will of the accused or another person.

Bruton rule

The rule that a criminal trial may not hear a confession or incriminating statement against a defendant that was made by another party to the crime without producing the speaker.

Totality of the Circumstances tests

The test that looks at the whole picture and all factors-- in determining whether a confession, incriminating statement or consent was freely and voluntarily given.

Administrative Searches

Thousands of administrative searches and functions are conducted every day by local, state, and federal employees. -The majority of these employees are not law enforcement officers. -They are not conducting criminal investigations but are conducting administrative functions that are related to the "special needs" of government and the community.

The Future of the Exclusionary Rule

Throughout the history of the exclusionary rule, there has been a concern in the United States about the cost to society when otherwise reliable evidence is suppressed and apparently guilty persons go free. Most other countries do not have an exclusionary rule triggered by police misconduct. If, as appears to be the case, there is a growing sentiment in both the public and the U.S. Supreme Court in favor of some change in the exclusionary rule, what are the limits of such a change? ¡An "exclusionary rule" may be used to address different kinds of violations of individual rights. ¡Where police misconduct violates an individual right protected by the U.S. Constitution, the applicability of an exclusionary rule (and a court's ability to change the rule) can depend on the constitutional right violated. The Fifth and Sixth Amendments make it clear that the introduction of evidence obtained in violation of those amendments is itself the constitutional violation. In other cases, such as violations of the Fourth Amendment, the exclusionary rule operates as a remedy for a constitutional violation that has occurred in the past; the admission of evidence acquired in a violation of the Fourth Amendment is not itself a violation of that Amendment.

Standing and Right of Privacy

To succeed in a motion to suppress evidence, a defendant must show that his or her own rights were violated, not the rights of some other person. ¡This concept is called standing. In Fourth Amendment cases, standing is mainly based on the existence of a "reasonable expectation of privacy" in the place where a search or seizure occurred. A reasonable expectation of privacy exists only if: ¡An individual actually expects privacy. ¡His or her expectation is reasonable. A police search is an intrusion into a right of privacy. ¡If the officer can show authority to make the search, the intrusion into privacy is lawful.

United States v. McClain 444 F.3d 556 (6th Cir. 2005), cert. Denied, 127 S.Ct. 580-2006

Using the information given to them by officers who first entered a house during a warrantless search, drug investigators obtained a warrant to search the house and found evidence used to charge the defendant with illegal-drug crimes. The trial court suppressed the evidence, but on appeal, the court of appeals held that the good-faith exception from Leon applied, even though the warrant was itself the "fruit of the poisonous tree." The court noted that other circuits had reached the opposite result.

Spectrograms or Voiceprints

Voice graphs made on a spectrograph, which analyzes voice recordings based on intensity, frequency, and time gaps.