Fourth Amendment: Exclusionary Rule

Wolf v. Colorado: evidence doesn’t have to be excluded for violations of 4th amendment

Mapp v. Ohio: evidence must be excluded for violations of 4th amendment since it is essential to protect amendment

US v. Leon: exclusionary rule does not apply when officers reasonably relied on a warrant issued by a magistrate that is later found to be invalid (no probable cause)

Purpose: to deter police misconduct

Exclusionary rule applies: officer obtains warrant from magistrate

1. Reasonably well trained officer would have known search is illegal

- Factor: previous magistrate rejected warrant application

2. Magistrate is given false information that the officer knew or should have known was false

3. Magistrate abandons their judicial role

4. Reasonable officer would have known warrant is facially deficient in addressing place to be searched and things to be seized

Invalid statute or court precedent: exclusionary rule doesn’t apply retroactively

Negligence: exclusionary rule does not apply (must be deliberate, reckless or grossly negligent conduct, or circumstances recurring or systematic negligence)

Herring v. US: exclusion rule inapplicable when officer reasonably believes there is an arrest warrant due to negligent bookkeeping error by another police employee

Fruit of the poisonous tree: secondary evidence obtained against D from an initial source (primary evidence) that was obtained in violation of the D’s fourth amendment right to privacy is inadmissible (still admissible for other persons) (Wong Sun)

Applicable: constitutional violations not Miranda warnings

Exceptions:

Independent source: evidence uncovered in violation of 4th is admissible if it is later discovered by untainted source

Inevitable discovery: preponderance of evidence that evidence would have been discovered by independent source (hypothetical independent source)

Nix v. Williams: 6th amendment violation, suspect lead police to dead body after an illegal interrogation & body still admissible since search effort would have eventually found it

Attenuation: connection between 4th violation and evidence is remote or interrupted by intervening circumstance

Voluntary confession: creates attenuation

Factors: temporal proximity, intervening circumstance, flagrancy of misconduct(need for deterrence)

Utah v. Streiff: unlawful seizure followed by warrant check for D safety creates attenuation