Chapter 9
The Exclusionary Rule
1
THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE (OR THE RULE
OF THE EXCLUSION OF EVIDENCE)


The exclusionary rule excludes evidence that
was improperly or illegally obtained.
The exclusionary rule seeks to discourage
improper or illegal investigative
procedures by law enforcement officers.

Some law enforcement conduct is improper
because it adversely affects a criminal
defendant’s statutory or constitutional rights,
such as the right to due process!
2



In Hudson v. Mich (2006), the Supreme Court
found that while a defendant might want a
longer period between “knock and announce”
and entry in service of a warrant, law
enforcement would discover evidence anyway.
The Court stated that individuals have no right
to try to destroy evidence.
It also determined that the exclusionary rule was
inappropriate for “knock and announce”
violations.
3


The principal U.S. Constitutional rights
threatened by police misconduct are the
Fifth and the Fourth Amendments.
Other constitutional protections are
secured for both federal and state
defendants under the due process clauses
of the Fifth & Fourteenth Amendments
4
Case Law—Exclusionary Rule


For much of U.S. history, relevant and reliable
evidence was admissible in criminal prosecutions
even if obtained illegally.
Beginning in 1914 (Weeks v. U.S.), in
federal cases and 1961 in state cases (Mapp
v. Ohio), the U.S. Supreme Court required
courts to exclude such evidence—that is, declare
the evidence inadmissible to help prove the
prosecution’s case.
5
THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE (OR THE RULE OF THE
EXCLUSION OF EVIDENCE) (Cont.)



The U.S. Supreme Court has also used the
exclusionary rule for violations of courtfashioned rules, like the famous Miranda rule.
In the Miranda case, the Supreme Court
adopted a court rule for determining the
minimum safeguards that must be used by
police before obtaining a confession or other
incriminating statements.
If these safeguards are not met, any resulting
confession or incriminating statement is
inadmissible.
6
THE “FRUIT OF THE POISONOUS TREE”
DOCTRINE (OR THE DERIVATIVE
EVIDENCE RULE)



The exclusionary rule applies not only to evidence
obtained indirectly as a result of improper police
conduct but also to evidence obtained indirectly from
that improper conduct.
Evidence derived from initial improper conduct is
usually called:
Fruit of the Poisonous Tree
7
THE “FRUIT OF THE POISONOUS TREE”
DOCTRINE (OR THE DERIVATIVE
EVIDENCE RULE)

The “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine is
applicable if improperly or illegally obtained
evidence is the basis for discovery of:



Other evidence that otherwise would not
have been found
A witness who otherwise might not have
been found
A confession or incriminating admission that
would not have been made if the suspect or
defendant had not been confronted with the
tainted (soiled) evidence
8
EXCEPTIONS TO THE “FRUIT OF THE
POISONOUS TREE” DOCTRINE


The derivative evidence rule, as the name
suggests, applies only if the challenged
evidence is directly and exclusively derived
from the improper police conduct.
The U.S. Supreme Court has developed three
exceptions to the doctrine in those situations:
9
1. The Independent Source Doctrine
•

Improper police conduct may lead to the
discovery of evidence, while at the same
time, another, proper source may lead to
the same evidence.
If the second, proper source of the
evidence is independent—that is, not
tainted by the improper conduct—the
evidence is admissible.
10
EXCEPTIONS TO THE “FRUIT OF THE POISONOUS TREE”
DOCTRINE (Cont.)
2. The Inevitable Discovery Rule

If police error or police misconduct has tainted
some evidence, the evidence and also
derivative evidence will be suppressed
and cannot be used in a criminal trial.

If it can be shown that the challenged
derivative evidence would have certainly been
discovered by legitimate police efforts, it would
be admissible.
11
3. The Attenuation, or “Passage of Time”
Rule


Where improper police conduct occurs and shortly
thereafter the conduct leads to the discovery of other
evidence, the poisonous tree doctrine reasonably
concludes a connection exists between the improper
conduct and the other evidence.
Where a significant period of time goes by between
the improper conduct and the new evidence, the U.S.
Supreme Court has long held that the “taint”
from the improper conduct can be dissipated.
12
MANY STATES NOW HAVE TWO SETS OF
EXCLUSIONARY RULES



All states must follow the federal Mapp (Mapp
v. Ohio) rule in determining the admissibility of
evidence.
It is not uncommon for state courts to impose
additional requirements in interpreting the
Constitution or statutes of the state.
State statutes, by themselves, could also alter
the federal Mapp rule and impose a stricter
standard in a given area of the law.
13
MANY STATES NOW HAVE TWO SETS OF
EXCLUSIONARY RULES (Cont.)



The federal rule is defined by the U.S. Supreme Court
and other federal courts while the state exclusionary
rule is defined and required by the state supreme
court (and sometimes by state statutes).
Evidence to be used in criminal cases in federal courts
in all states would be judged by the federal Mapp rule.
Some states have simplified this situation by
eliminating, to a large extent, their state exclusionary
rule.
14


Many states have enacted sections to
their state constitutions requiring
state courts in that state to determine
the admissibility of evidence.
In conformity with the 4th
Amendment as interpreted by
the U.S. Supreme Court
15
Should There by Changes, Major or
Minor, in the American Exclusionary
Rule?

Some U.S. Supreme Court justices are not
happy with the present scope of the
exclusionary rule because it causes the
suppression of almost all evidence
obtained by police misconduct (whether
slight or serious), without regard to
seriousness of crime or the value of the
evidence.
16

No other democratic nation in the world
has a rule that requires automatic
suppression of all evidence obtained by
police misconduct.
17