Limitations to the Exclusionary Rule

1
Limitations to the Exclusionary Rule

• Alternatives to the Rule

2
Mapp

• Applies E.R. to st. courts applying 4th am
• other remedies worthless and futile
• Without E.R., 4th am -- a form of words,
  valueless
• An essential part of right to privacy
• imperative of judicial integrity
• Gives individual that which the Constitution
  guarantees him
• Otherwise encourage disobedience

3
Good faith exception

• Edmunds casefacts?
• 4th am violation?
• SCt decision in Leon?
• Reasoning in Leon?
• E.R. not a necessary corollary of 4th am
• Designed for its deterrent effect
• Not as a constitutional right of aggrieved

4
Good faith exception

• Where a police officer is acting in objective
  good faith in executing a search warrant, 4th am.
  does not require exclusion, even if probable
  cause is lacking
• Unless police officer acted knowingly or
  recklessly in providing false information to
  magistrate

5
Why does Penn. reject good faith exception?

• Penn. Constitution predates 4th am
• good faith is not relevant to right to be free
  from searches not based on probable cause
• Judicial integrity
• four corners requirement
• Policy matterpolice preferences?
• costs of exclusionary rule?

6
Prob. 6-1 Objective Good Faith

• Do facts in affidavit establish probable cause?
• Does warrant meet requirements of good faith
  exception?

7
Prob. 6-2. Unwarranted Good Faith

• What outcome under Leon?
• What outcome under Texas rule?

8
Types of Hearings to which Exclusionary Rule
applies

• Applies
• Criminal trials Quasi-criminal proceedings
  (forfeiture)
• Does not apply
• Grand jury proceedings, administrative hearings
  (immigration), parole hearings

9
At criminal trials

• If evidence excluded,
• Exclusion applies to governments case-in-chief
• Defendant can still open the door to suppressed
  evidence by testifying inconsistently with
  evidence.
• Suppressed evidence admissible for impeachment
  of defendant only

10
Inevitable Discovery Independent Source

• Nix v. Williamsfacts?
• Constitutional violation?
• What was the primary illegally obtained evidence?
• What was the fruit of the poisonous tree?

11
Inevitable Discovery Rule?

• If prosecution can establish by a preponderance
  of the evidence that evidence inevitably wouldve
  been discovered by lawful means, than evidence is
  not excluded.
• Puts prosecution in no better position than if no
  police misconduct transpired

12
Evidence of inevitable discovery in this case?

• Was the place where girls body found within the
  search area?
• How soon did they estimate it wouldve taken to
  find her?

13
Courts reasoning in not excluding the evidence?

• Exclusion serves only a deterrent purpose
• enormous social cost
• Not needed for deterrence purposes Significant
  disincentivesincluding possibility of
  departmental discipline and civil liability

14
Limits of this exception

• Is it necessary to show that a lawful
  investigation was already underway?
• Might police offer testimony of routine
  investigative practices instead?

15
Inevitable Discovery Independent Source

• If police enter without a warrant, might they
  argue that they couldve gotten warrant?
• What if they dont seize evidence and get a
  warrant based on previously known information
  only?

16
Standing to Challenge Search

• St. v. WoodFacts?
• Constitutional violation?
• Does Wood have standing to challenge the
  search?
• If this were a federal case?
• In Vermont?

17
Rakas standing rule?

• A person must have a legitimate expectation of
  privacy in the area searched to have standing.
• How would a person prove a legitimate expectation
  of privacy?
• Did Wood have a legitimate expectation of privacy
  in trailer curtilage?

18
Prob. 6-3. Place of Business

• Facts?
• Do Carter and Johns have standing to challenge
  the search of apartment?
• (Was it a search?)
• What if they had stayed overnight?
• What if they had stayed for dinner?
• If search of car illegal, who has standing? Only
  the owner or the person using it

19
Alternative Remedies

• Need for adequate checks on police powers in
  order to prevent widespread abuses as in
  Rampart scandal in LA
• Police supervision, hiring, training
• Disciplinary proceedings
• Civil tort remedies
• Criminal prosecution

20
Why did Rampart occur?

• culture of policing, emphasizing use of force
  and code of silence
• Hiring officers with violent backgrounds
• Structure of departmenteffectively unaccountable
  Chief of Police
• No independent reviews
• Unfair disciplinary proceedings
• Tainted use of force investigations

21
Some administrative remedies

• Civilian review boardsAre they independent of
  police department? How much power do they have?
• Internal Affairs Departments
• Early warning systems

22
Tort Actions

• Types of plaintiffs?
• Hurdles to plaintiffs?
• Qualified immunity if acted in good faith
• Do tort actions punish officers?
• If officers represented by state and indemnified
  for damages?
• Officers not routinely disciplined

23
Other hurdles

• Equitable relief in tort actions?
• Plaintiff wanted to court to bar use of chokehold
  in cases not involving threat of injury.
• Must show substantial likelihood that he would
  be choked again.
• Courts rarely impose injunctive relief

24
Suits by Dept. of Justice

• pattern or practice that violates
  constitutional rights
• Change in law allows federal government to bring
  suits directly, rather than prosecuting
  individuals criminally
• Effective in obtaining consent decrees

25
Criminal prosecution for excessive force?

• LAPD involved in 571 shootings from 1977-87, many
  involved unarmed civilians.
• 1 officer indicted.
• Has any HPD officer ever been indicted for
  killing or injurying in line of duty?