Peter W. Fenton, J.D.
Kennesaw State University
Michael B. Shapiro, J.D.
Georgia State University

“The right of the people to be secure in their
persons, houses, papers, and effects, against
unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not
be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but
upon probable cause, supported by oath or
affirmation, and particularly describing the
place to be searched, and the persons or things
to be seized.”
Facts:
The federal
government sought
forfeiture (a civil
action) based upon
fraud in their
importation.
The notice to produce
the invoice violated
Fourth Amendment
protections. The
invoice should NOT
have been admitted
into evidence.
Holding:
Facts:
Without a warrant, officers
on two separate occasions
searched home and
seized papers.
The search and seizure of
the papers violated the
protections of the Fourth
Amendment.
Holding:
The case applies the
Exclusionary Rule
discussed in Boyd v.
United States (1886) to
criminal cases.
Police officers were mainly
judgment proof; no assets to
There was little to no formal
police training (“scientific”
policing classes began in
1919, and New York became
the first state to mandate
training and create a police
academy in 1959).
Think back to 1914…
satisfy a judgment after a civil
suit.
If the court allowed illegally
seized evidence, the court
would be condoning wrongdoing.
Why
choose
exclusion?
Excluding illegally seized
evidence would have deterrent
effect on police wrong-doing.
Facts:
While in custody,
Silverthorne’s offices
were searched without
a warrant and papers
seized. Silverthorne
demanded the papers
back, but authorities
copied them first.
The Fourth
Amendment extends to
corporations and
includes “derivative”
evidence (ex. copies).
The “fruit of the
poisoned tree”
doctrine.
Holding:
Facts:
Charged with
conspiracy to perform
abortions, police
seized Dr. Wolf’s
appointment book
without a warrant.
The Exclusionary Rule
DOES NOT apply to the
states.
“Silver Platter” Doctrine
allowed use of stateseized evidence by
federal authorities.
Holding:
Facts:
Police entered
house without a
warrant, searching
for a bomber.
Pornography was
seized.
The Exclusionary
Rule DOES apply to
the states.
Holding:
Facts:
Connecticut
prohibited giving
married persons
advice or devices
to prevent
conception.
“Marital privacy”
recognized as
constitutional
right.
Holding:
Facts:
FBI put
microphone on
outside of phone
booth to hear
Katz place
interstate bets.
Katz showed a
“reasonable
expectation of
privacy” when he
closed the phone
booth door.
Holding:
Exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule.
Facts:
The passage of
time purged the
taint of the
illegal arrest and
the confession
was admissible.
Holding:
Days after his
illegal arrest,
Wong Sun
returned and
confessed to the
police.
Facts:
Illegal arrest
merely to take
photograph of
suspect to show
victim.
Victim’s in-court
identification was
an independent
source and not
the fruit of the
illegal arrest.
Holding:
Facts:
While searchers
looked for kidnapping
victim, police illegally
questioned suspect
who showed them
where to find the
body.
Victim’s body would
have been inevitably
discovered.
Holding:
Facts:
Rape suspect
asked where
gun was prior
to receiving
Concern for
public safety
supersedes
Miranda.
Miranda
Holding:
warning.
Facts:
Police executed
search warrant
wrongly issued
by judge.
Exclusionary
Rule applies to
police
misconduct, not
judicial errors.
Holding:
Facts:
Woman uses key to
admit police to
apartment, where
drugs are found in
“plain view”.
Remanded: did
police act
reasonably in
believing she could
let them into the
apartment?
Holding:
Facts:
Computer showed
outstanding
warrant for
wrong-way driver.
Marijuana found
in car.
Exclusionary Rule
applies to police
misconduct, not
court clerk’s
errors.
Holding:
Facts:
Nearby county
police showed
outstanding
warrant. Drugs
and gun found.
Police clerk’s
error was
negligent, not
reckless or
deliberate.
Holding:
Facts:
Police with
warrant entered
after knocking,
but before
Hudson could
open door.
Entry was wrong,
but exclusion of
evidence is too
harsh a remedy.
Scalia authors
majority opinion.
Holding:
Facts:
Arrested for suspended
license, vehicle searched
while in back of patrol
car.
Search incident to recent
occupant’s arrest only if
suspect might access car
or reasonable belief
vehicle contains
evidence related to
offense of arrest. Scalia
concurs.
Holding:
Facts:
Warrantless, forced
blood test of DWI
suspect.
Natural dissipation
of blood alcohol is
not an exigent
circumstance
allowing blood draw
without warrant.
Scalia in majority.
Holding:
Facts:
Drug dog taken onto
front porch without a
warrant alerts.
Taking drug dog onto
front porch was a
“search” under the
Fourth Amendment
and required a
warrant or probable
cause. Scalia authors
Holding:
majority opinion.
Facts:
Stopped one mile
after leaving area
about to be searched,
apartment key found
on Bailey.
Detention was beyond
any reasonable
understanding of
“immediate vicinity”
of area to be
searched. Scalia in
majority.
Holding:
Facts:
DNA sample after
assault arrest
matched unsolved
rape case.
DNA sampling of
arrestees is similar
to photographing
and fingerprinting.
Scalia dissents.
Holding:
Facts:
Cell phone
searched after
arrest for crime
unrelated to
phone.
Police may not
generally search
phone of
arrestees
without warrant.
Holding:
Unanimous.