|
|
|
|
Exclusionary rule
|
| |
|
| |
The exclusionary rule is a legal principle in the United States, under constitutional law, which holds that evidence collected or analyzed in violation of the defendant's constitutional rights is sometimes inadmissible for a criminal prosecution in a court of law. This may be considered an example of a prophylactic rule formulated by the judiciary in order to protect a constitutional right. However, in some circumstances at least, the exclusionary rule may also be considered to follow directly from the constitutional language, such as the Fifth Amendment's command that no person "shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself" and that no person "shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law."
The exclusionary rule is designed to provide a remedy and disincentive, short of criminal prosecution, in response to prosecutors and police who illegally gather evidence in violation of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments in the Bill of Rights, by conducting unreasonable searches and seizure or compelled self-incrimination.
Discussion
Ask a question about 'Exclusionary rule' Start a new discussion about 'Exclusionary rule' Answer questions from other users |
Encyclopedia
The exclusionary rule is a legal principle in the United States, under constitutional law, which holds that evidence collected or analyzed in violation of the defendant's constitutional rights is sometimes inadmissible for a criminal prosecution in a court of law. This may be considered an example of a prophylactic rule formulated by the judiciary in order to protect a constitutional right. However, in some circumstances at least, the exclusionary rule may also be considered to follow directly from the constitutional language, such as the Fifth Amendment's command that no person "shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself" and that no person "shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law."
The exclusionary rule is designed to provide a remedy and disincentive, short of criminal prosecution, in response to prosecutors and police who illegally gather evidence in violation of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments in the Bill of Rights, by conducting unreasonable searches and seizure or compelled self-incrimination. The exclusionary rule also applies to violations of the Sixth Amendment, which guarantees the right to counsel.
This rule is occasionally referred to as a legal technicality because it allows defendants a defense that does not address whether the crime was actually committed. In this respect, it is similar to the explicit rule in the Fifth Amendment protecting people from double jeopardy.
The exclusionary rule judges the admissibility of evidence based on deontological ethics; that is, it is concerned with how evidence is acquired, rather than what the evidence proves. For this reason, in strict cases, when an illegal action is used by police/prosecution to gain any incriminating result, all evidence whose recovery stemmed from the illegal action—this evidence is known as "fruit of the poisonous tree"—can be thrown out from a jury (or be grounds for a mistrial if too much information has been irrevocably revealed).
The exclusionary rule applies to all persons within the United States regardless of whether they are citizens, immigrants (legal or illegal), or visitors.
History of the rule
Up until the independence of the United States, the courts of England excluded self-incriminating evidence that was provided as a result of official compulsion, regardless of its reliability. In 1769, Lord Chief Justice Mansfield explained as follows:
Chief Justice Mansfield also explained that "If any evidence or confession has been extorted from her, it will be of no prejudice to her on the trial." Additionally, a defendant could sue to suppress and regain possession of at least some types of illegally-seized evidence, in a common law action for replevin.
However, in the 1783 case of King v. Warickshall, the English courts declined to suppress evidence obtained by illegal coercion. In the Warickshall case, evidence was gathered as a result of an involuntary confession, and the court held that the evidence (but not the confession itself) could be admitted. It is questionable whether the Warickshall rule became known in the United States before 1789 (when the U.S. Bill of Rights was written), and whether it applied to confessions obtained by both governmental and private parties. In any event, no decision by the Supreme Court of the United States has ever endorsed the Warickshall rule as a constitutional matter.
Generally speaking, English law before 1789 did not provide as strong an exclusionary rule as the one that later developed under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, regarding unlawful searches and seizures. The Fourth Amendment, after all, was partly a reaction against English law including the general warrant and the writs of assistance.
In the 1886 case of Boyd v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed compulsory production of business papers, and the Court excluded those papers based on a combination of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. Boyd was closely limited to its facts, and several years later the Court stated that the Fourth Amendment does not extend to "excluding testimony" about wrongful searches and seizures.
In 1897, the U.S. Supreme Court held, in Bram v. United States, that involuntary confessions are inadmissible as evidence. The Court in Bram did not announce a strong version of the exclusionary rule that would apply uniformly to exclude all evidence gathered in violation of the Bill of Rights, but instead announced a weak version that excluded only self-incriminating testimony that was compelled in violation of the Fifth Amendment. The distinction between testimonial versus other self-incriminating evidence is a matter of continuing debate.
Before a strong version of the exclusionary rule was addressed and adopted by the federal courts, it had already been adopted by at least one state court, namely the Iowa Supreme Court, as that court would later describe:
In 1914, the U.S. Supreme Court announced a strong version of the exclusionary rule, in the case of Weeks v. United States, under the Fourth Amendment prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures. This decision, however, created the rule only on the federal level. The "Weeks Rule", which made an exception for cases at the state level, was adopted by numerous states at a time during prohibition. In adopting the rule, actions by states often reflected attitudes towards prohibition, which was enacted by the Volstead Act. Concerns about privacy violations also extended to other instances where criminal sanctions were permitted for "victimless" crime, such as illegal gambling or narcotics violations.
In 1920, the U.S. Supreme Court adopted the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine in the case of Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States. The Court stated that allowing evidence gathered as an indirect result of an unconstitutional search and seizure "reduces the Fourth Amendment to a form of words."
Wolf v. Colorado (1949) ruled that states were not required to adopt the exclusionary rule. Despite the ruling, some states adopted the exclusionary rule. The California Supreme Court ruled in People v. Cahan (1955) that the exclusionary rule applied for cases in the state of California. By 1960, 22 states had adopted the rule without substantial qualifications: California, Delaware, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Washington, Texas, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming. Michigan also had an exclusionary rule, but with limitations for some narcotics and firearms evidence. In Alabama, Maryland, and South Dakota, the exclusionary rule applied in some situations.
It was not until Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961) that the exclusionary rule was also held to be binding on the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees due process. Up until Mapp, the exclusionary rule had been rejected by most states.
Applications of the exclusionary rule
The exclusionary rule originally often applies to evidence obtained through unauthorized search and seizure. Under the Fourth Amendment, a warrant, which required probable cause, should be obtained in order to conduct a search. A number of exceptions to the warrant requirement have developed, based on other interpretations of what "reasonableness" entails. A strict interpretation of the Fourth Amendment says that a search without a warrant is unreasonable. This interpretation is favored by civil liberties advocates.
The rule was expanded in the 1960s to cover other aspects of law enforcement procedure, including "involuntary" confessions, suspect identification obtained in violation of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, wiretapping evidence in violation of federal law, and other evidence obtained through very unreasonable or "shocking" means in violation of Constitutional rights. In Illinois, People v. Albea (1954) ruled that testimony from witnesses found in course of an unlawful search cannot be admitted into court.
Limitations of the rule
The exclusionary rule does not apply in a civil case, in a grand jury proceeding, or in a parole revocation hearing.
Even in a criminal case, the exclusionary rule does not simply bar the introduction of all evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth, Fifth, or Sixth Amendment. In Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586, 126 S.Ct. 2159 (June 15, 2006), Justice Scalia wrote for the U.S. Supreme Court:
Limitations on the exclusionary rule have included the following:
- Evidence unlawfully obtained from the defendant by a private person is admissible. The exclusionary rule is designed to protect privacy rights, with the Fourth Amendment applying specifically to government officials.
- Evidence can only be suppressed if the illegal search violated the person's own (the person making the court motion) constitutional rights. The exclusionary rule does not apply to privacy rights of a third party.
- The defendant cannot take advantage of the situation (police breaching rules) to turn the case to their advantage, in face of other evidence against them.
- The Silver Platter doctrine applied before the Elkins v. United States ruling in 1960. State officials that obtained evidence illegally were allowed to turn over evidence to federal officials, and have that evidence be admitted into trial.
- If the court determines that the evidence obtained in the unlawful search would have been found in a later, warranted search, the evidence may be brought forth in court.
The exclusionary rule is not applicable to aliens residing outside of U.S. borders. In United States v. Alvarez-Machain, 504 U.S. 655, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that property owned by aliens in a foreign country is admissible in court. Certain persons in the U.S. receive limited protections, such as prisoners, probationers, parolees, and persons crossing U.S. borders. Corporations, by virtue of being, also have limited rights under the Fourth Amendment (see corporate personhood).
Hudson v. Michigan
The court in Hudson v. Michigan further held that a search whose only illegality is the failure to announce cannot uncover any evidence that would not have been uncovered if the announcement had been properly made, and therefore the suppression of evidence is not an appropriate remedy. The Court followed the general judicial trend, which views the exclusionary rule as a judicial remedy rather than a requirement under the Fourth Amendment. The Court there found that the costs of applying the exclusionary rule to the necessarily gray area of the "knock and announce" requirement were outweighed by the deterrence benefit. Over vigorous dissent the Court wrote, "But ignoring knock-and-announce can realistically be expected to achieve absolutely nothing except the prevention of destruction of evidence and the avoidance of life-threatening resistance by occupants of the premises—dangers which, if there is even "reasonable suspicion" of their existence, suspend the knock-and-announce requirement anyway. Massive deterrence is hardly required."
Limitations of the exclusionary rule have been criticized for reducing the effectiveness of rule in deterring police misconduct.
Herring v. United States
In 2008 the exclusionary rule was reviewed in Herring v. United States. The case involved an individual, Bennie Herring, who was arrested after a neighboring law enforcement department found what they thought to be a warrant for skipping a court date on which the second department processed an arrest. The warrant was found to have been canceled, but not before further detention was made by the second department for drugs and a firearm (Herring was already a convicted felon and not allowed to have a firearm) found in Herring's possession. The evidence found during this arrest led to a 27-month prison term for Herring.
The issue in front of the court was whether the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies when a police officer makes an arrest after receiving information from a different law enforcement agency about an outstanding warrant, and the information was incorrect because of a negligent error by that agency. Two lower courts had already ruled in favor of the government. In a 5-to-4 vote, the United States Supreme Court upheld Herring's conviction on drug and weapons charges, saying that the exclusionary rule is not absolute. While the exclusionary rule does not apply to police officers' isolated negligence that results in an unlawful search, it continues to apply to "systemic error" and "reckless disregard of constitutional requirements". Chief Justice Roberts wrote that "the exclusionary rule is not an individual right", whereas the dissenters argued to exclude evidence even where deterrence does not justify doing so.
Exceptions to the rule
Even when the exclusionary rule does apply, the rule excludes the illegally obtained evidence only on the issue of the defendant's guilt for the particular crime charged. The evidence can still be admitted to impeach the credibility of the defendant's trial testimony; however, this exception applies only if the defendant testifies, and the evidence is relevant to call into question the truthfulness of the defendant's testimony.
The inevitable discovery doctrine is a direct exception to the exclusionary rule, in that it allows the admission of evidence on the issue of the defendant's guilt where the evidence would otherwise have been excluded. This doctrine was adopted first by the United States Supreme Court in Nix v. Williams in 1984. It holds that evidence obtained through an unlawful search or seizure is admissible in court if it can be established, to a very high degree of probability, that normal police investigation would have inevitably led to the discovery of the evidence. This decision was upheld because given the fact that the exclusionary rule was created specifically to deter police and state misconduct, excluding evidence that would inevitably (hypothetically) have been discovered otherwise would not serve to deter police misconduct. In People v. Stith, the Court stated that this doctrine may not be used to admit primary evidence but only secondary evidence—i.e., evidence found as a result of the primary evidence.
The attenuation exception to the exclusionary rule is that evidence may be suppressed only if there is a clear causal connection between the illegal police action and the evidence. The evidence must result from the unlawful conduct. A three-pronged test was created in People v. Martinez to determine whether there was sufficient attenuation of this connection ( i.e. the lack of connection between the disputed evidence and the unlawful conduct): (1) the time period between the illegal arrest and the ensuing confession or consensual search; (2) the presence of intervening factors or event; and (3) the purpose and flagrancy of the official misconduct.
The independent source exception allows evidence to be admitted in court if knowledge of the evidence is gained from a separate, or independent, source that is completely unrelated to the illegality at hand. This rule was formally accepted in People v. Arnau.
The good-faith exception may allow some evidence gathered in violation of the Constitution if the violation results in only a minor or technical error. If a magistrate is erroneous in granting a police officer a warrant, and the officer acts on the warrant in good faith, then the evidence resulting in the execution of the warrant is not suppressible. However, there are a number of situations in which the good faith exception will not apply:
- No reasonable judicial officer would have relied on the affidavit underlying the warrant.
- The warrant is defective on its face for failing to state the place to be searched or things to be seized.
- The warrant was obtained based on an affidavit which, intentionally or recklessly, includes material falsehoods.
- The magistrate has "wholly abandoned his judicial role."
This rule was formally accepted in United States v. Leon
Criticism
In the 1970s, Dallin H. Oaks, Malcolm Wilkey, and others called for the exclusionary rule to be abolished. By the 1980s, the exclusionary rule remained controversial and was strongly opposed by President Ronald Reagan. But, some opponents began seeking to have the rule modified, rather than abolished altogether. The case, Illinois v. Gates, before the Supreme Court brought the exclusionary rule for reconsideration. The Supreme Court also considered allowing exceptions for errors made by police in good faith. The Reagan administration also asked Congress to ease the rule.
See also
|
| |
|
|
