CRJU 350 Lecture Notes - Lecture 10: Exclusionary Rule, Harmless Error, Perjury
Chapter 10
4th Amend. Violation
- Remedy: lawsuit for trespass to property (court created)
The Exclusionary Rule
- WEEKS v. US: held that evidence obtained by federal agents in violation of the 4th
Amend. was subject to suppression (can’t be used in court) aka The Exclusionary Rule
- MAPP v. OHIO: the Exclusionary Rule applied in both state & federal courts and
required suppression of evidence if obtained in violation of the 4th Amend.
- Judicially-created remedy, not a personal constitutional right
- Fruit of the poisonous (unlawfully seized items) = suppressed as well
Invoking The Exclusionary Rule
- Motion to Suppress Evidence: suppressed evidence can’t be used to prove D’s guilt
- Evidentiary hearing with witness, must be heard before trial
- Burden of Proof: D raises issue, people must show reasonable search by preponderance
evidence.
- Limitation: D must have standing to bring a motion to suppress
- If judge denies motion by error, D can appeal and People must show harmless error,
showing no reasonable probability that evidence influence outcome of trial
Standing
- Not everyone can bring a motion to suppress, only those with standing
- Standing: D must have actual & subjective expectation of privacy in search area
- Standing is personal, not vicarious, privacy MUST be violated
- Overnight guest have standing, random visitors probably not
- Passengers in car don’t have standing
- Mere possessory interest in seized items is not standing
Exclusionary Rule Exceptions:
- Collateral Proceedings: do not involve determination whether D is guilty or not
(sentence, bail, probation/parole hearings, asset forfeiture)
- Attenuated Taint: connection between discovery and illegal search is not direct (weak),
- WONG SUN v. US: test of taint removed/purged by intervening actions
- BROWN v. ILLINOIS: three factors courts must consider in determining whether
attenuation sufficient to purge the taint:
- Temporal Proximity: time passed between discovery and illegality
- Intervening Circumstances: independent & involuntary acts that can break
causation
- Intentional Violation: did police violate law? If yes, attenuation is less likely
- Independent Source: evidence discovered during illegal search but later obtained from
activities untainted by the initial illegality
- Inevitable Discovery: no suppression if can prove evidence would have been found
regardless without violation
- Impeachment: attack on witness credibility using evidence obtained from unlawful means
(cross-examined)
- Good Faith: (US v. Leon): can’t suppress evidence if acting in good faith even though it
was unlawful.Test: whether reasonable well-trained officer would know search was
illegal
Purpose of Exclusionary Rule: to deter police from future violation
Entrapment: 3 legal tests
- Subjective: focus on D’s state of mind, was he predisposed to commit crime (similar
crimes) or government create it.
- Objective: focus on government, did actions fall below standards of common response
- Due Process: was the conduct unfair and outrageous that violates due process
Chapter 11
Civil Remedies
- Civil tort lawsuits for damages against officers and their employers: compensate victim
- Compensatory Damages: for actual harm or expenses
- Punitive Damages: deter from future violations
- Civil lawsuits for violating constitutional rights
- State officers: can be sued in state or federal under US Code Title 42 sec. 1983
- Federal officers: can be sued in federal courts in a Bivens lawsuits
Section 1983 Lawsuits: 3 elements
- D must have acted under color of state law
- D’s acts must have violated established constitutional right by federal law
- No immunity: Qualified immunity: doing an act an objective officer would know is illegal
Under Color of State Law:
- Acts of officers while on duty
- Even off duty, TOC applies
Well-Established Constitutional Right
- Often involve excessive force or wrongful death relying on 4th, 5th, 8th Amend.
No Immunity
- Test of qualified immunity: was the act one an objective officer would know is illegal? If
so, there is no qualified immunity
Bivens Suits:
- Federal agent can be held civilly liable for violations of 4th Amend. Rights
- Action must be taken during exercise of official duties, not private citizen
- Act must have violated constitutional right
- Suit can’t be barred by immunity
Affirmative Duty to Protect: when is law enforcement liable for failing to act
- General Rule: govern. employees have no legal obligation to protect life, liberty, property
- Exceptions: special relationship: prisoners, law enforcement create danger
Pattern & Practice Decrees (DOJ)
- Federal Police Misconduct Statute makes it illegal for officers to engage in pattern
- Consent Decree (form of injunction): court order to stop illegal conduct/ cure violation
Document Summary
Remedy: lawsuit for trespass to property (court created) Weeks v. us: held that evidence obtained by federal agents in violation of the 4th. Amend. was subject to suppression (can"t be used in court) aka the exclusionary rule. Mapp v. ohio: the exclusionary rule applied in both state & federal courts and required suppression of evidence if obtained in violation of the 4th amend. Fruit of the poisonous (unlawfully seized items) = suppressed as well. Motion to suppress evidence: suppressed evidence can"t be used to prove d"s guilt. Evidentiary hearing with witness, must be heard before trial. Burden of proof: d raises issue, people must show reasonable search by preponderance evidence. Limitation: d must have standing to bring a motion to suppress. If judge denies motion by error, d can appeal and people must show harmless error, showing no reasonable probability that evidence influence outcome of trial. Not everyone can bring a motion to suppress, only those with standing.
