The purpose of the rule is to deter law enforcement officers from conducting searches or seizures in violation of the Fourth Amendment and to provide remedies to defendants whose rights have been infringed.
Courts have also carved out several exceptions to the exclusionary rule where the costs of exclusion outweigh its deterrent or remedial benefits. For example, the good-faith exception , below, does not trigger the rule because excluding the evidence would not deter police officers from violating the law in the future.
Under the good-faith exception , evidence is not excluded if it is obtained by officers who reasonably rely on a search warrant that turns out to be invalid. See Arizona v. Also, in Davis v. Supreme Court ruled that the exclusionary rule does not apply when the police conduct a search in reliance on binding appellate precedent allowing the search.
Under Illinois v. Krull , evidence may be admissible if the officers rely on a statute that is later invalidated. In Herring v. Evidence initially obtained during an unlawful search or seizure may later be admissible if the evidence is later obtained through a constitutionally valid search or seizure. Murray v. Additionally, some courts recognize an "expanded" doctrine, in which a partially tainted warrant is upheld if, after excluding the tainted information that lead to its issuance, the remaining untainted information establishes probable cause sufficient to justify its issuance.
Related to the independent source doctrine, above, and also adopted in Nix v. Williams , the inevitable discovery doctrine allows admission of evidence that was discovered in an unlawful search or seizure if it would have be discovered in the same condition anyway, by an independent line of investigation that was already being pursued when the unlawful search or seizure occurred. In cases where the relationship between the evidence challenged and the unconstitutional conduct is too remote and attenuated, the evidence may be admissible.
See Utah v. Brown v. Illinois , cited in Strieff , articulated three factors for the courts to consider when determining attenuation: temporal proximity, the presence of intervening circumstances, and the purpose and flagrancy of the official misconduct. The Supreme Court recognized this exception in Harris v. New York as a truth-testing device to prevent perjury. Ohio In Mapp , the liberal Warren Court extended the Weeks exclusionary rule to state courts.
The Warren Court held that the exclusionary rule is part of a citizen's Fourth Amendment right and that the rule was needed because the states had not devised any effective remedies to the problem of arbitrary searches by police. Some police administrators and politicians denounced Mapp for handcuffing the police. Erosion of Mapp.
Lack of support for the rule among conservative U. Supreme Court justices who succeeded the liberal members of the Warren Court to the bench has limited the rule's impact. In a series of cases, the Court held that illegally obtained evidence could be used as the basis for grand jury questions, by the Internal Revenue Service in a civil tax proceeding, and in deportation hearings.
Leon , the Court carved out the good faith exception: if the police make an honest mistake in conducting a search—that is, if the police act on the basis of a search warrant which a court later declares invalid—the seized evidence is still admissible. Previous Police Function.
Removing book from your Reading List will also remove any bookmarked pages associated with this title.
0コメント