Crim Pro 3.1.txt

Precludes gov't using evidence seized in violation of D's constitutional rights to convict D of a crime

• Suppresion of illegal evidence
• Exclusionary rule applies to 4th Am
• F.O.P.T. rule applies to other Amendments

Only a person injured can claim right to have illegally obtained evidence supressed

• -person has standing when his/her R.E.O.P has been invaded (Rakas v. Illinois)
• -Guest has standing to challenge illegal search (Minnesota v. Olson)

• Systematic use of illegal evidence compromises integrity of judicial system
• Public trust - use of illegal evidence jepordizes faith in court system
• Individual rights - use of illegal evidence intrudes on basic individual rights
• Deterrence - punishes unlawful police behavior

• Fourth Amendment bars use of evidence unconstitionally seized by federal officers
• Judicially derived remedy

State are subject to substantive porvisions of 4th Am. through the 14th Am. Due process analysis

14th Am violated by consciencesly schocking conduct to elicit evidence is inadmissable

4th Am exclusionary rule now applies to ALL state cases to!

Evidence seized where there is a K & A violation will NOT be suppressed solely on a K & A violation.

• Officers good faith reliance of warrant issued by neutral magistrate is a "good faith" exception to Exclusionary Rule
• Must be objectively reasonable

Lower courts should not use Due Process powers to exclude evidence w/o the Leon cost-benefit rule

Inadequate invalid warrant is not saved by an adequate application for the warrant

4th Am does not automatically suppress evidence obtained through book-keeping error.

Exclusionary Rule is not applicable to civil trials

No vicariously asserted 4th Am rights

Prohibits prosecution from using evidence directly obtained from a Constitutional viloation

• Independent Source Doctrine
• Inevitable Discovery Rule
• Attenuated Connection Principle

evidence in question is not FOPT and not linked to gov't illegality

police would have eventually discovered evidence lawfully w/o illegally obtained info

• Intervening event between initial illegality and seizure of challenged evidence.
• Can be time, place, or people

• Police cannot put themselves in a better position resulting from illegally obtained evidence.
• Determined by preponderence of the evidence

illegal fruit may still be admissable if the "taint of the illegality" is purged by knowingly (of illegality) confession thereafter.

ussually not allowed, unless there was an egregious violation of the 4th Am

Exclusionary Rule not applicable to Grand Jury Proceedings.

Harmless error must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.