Evidence: Chapter 9

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.

Hudson v. Michigan 547 U.S. 586 (2006)

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.

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 used 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.

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.

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

Fahy v Connecticut

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."

Involuntary Statement 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 the 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.

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.

Michigan v. Tucker 417

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 Staes v. Patane

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

United States v. Herring 555 U.S. 135 (2009)

The U.S. Supreme Court held the exclusionary rule was not appropriate in a situation where officers 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.

Miranda and the PT Rule

The U.S. Supreme Court stated that the sole 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.

State v. Knapp

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.

Exceptions to the 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.

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 affects 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.

Miranda and the Poisonous Tree rule

The fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine places emphasis on the 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 Future of the Exclusionary Rule

Throughout the history of the exclusionary rule there has been 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. The exclusion of such evidence is thus not constitutionally mandated, and the exclusionary rule as a remedy may be changed over time. There are many exceptions to the exclusionary rule. It is likely the U.S. Supreme Court will in the future hear cases where the full extent of the exclusionary rule is at issue. The court has said the rule cannot be abolished altogether; it also likely that a majority of the nine judges of the Supreme Court would not rule for dramatic changes in the rule.

Attention 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 conduct and the new evidence, the "taint" from the improper conduct can be dissipated or eliminated.