Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

1 Chapter 10 Where the Exclusionary Rule Does Not Apply.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "1 Chapter 10 Where the Exclusionary Rule Does Not Apply."— Presentation transcript:

1 1 Chapter 10 Where the Exclusionary Rule Does Not Apply

2 2 Where does the Exclusionary Rule Not Apply? Civil cases and proceedings Civil cases and proceedings Evidence obtained in a private search by a private person Evidence obtained in a private search by a private person A private search can become a government search when the government enters participation in the search. A private search can become a government search when the government enters participation in the search.

3 3 The exclusionary rule does not apply to evidence obtained in a consent search (U.S. v. Drayton, 2002). The exclusionary rule does not apply to evidence obtained in a consent search (U.S. v. Drayton, 2002). However, two requirements for the use of evidence in a consent search must be met: However, two requirements for the use of evidence in a consent search must be met: 1. Proof that consent was given voluntarily, and 1. Proof that consent was given voluntarily, and 2. Proof that consent was obtained from a person with actual or apparent authority to grant the consent. 2. Proof that consent was obtained from a person with actual or apparent authority to grant the consent.

4 4 The person giving consent to search may limit the area to be searched and may also revoke consent at any time. The person giving consent to search may limit the area to be searched and may also revoke consent at any time. Consent is not needed to enter premises if there are exigent circumstances. Consent is not needed to enter premises if there are exigent circumstances.

5 5 Georgia v. Randolph (2006) In this case, the Supreme Court held, while there was a fine line drawn that a third party consent (in cohabitation) will be recognized, but only if this is within the wishes of the other cohabitant. In this case, the Supreme Court held, while there was a fine line drawn that a third party consent (in cohabitation) will be recognized, but only if this is within the wishes of the other cohabitant.

6 6 U.S. v. Groves (2008) In Groves, the 7 th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the validity of a search under the consent of one cohabitant even though law enforcement knew the defendant would be away from the home. In Groves, the 7 th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the validity of a search under the consent of one cohabitant even though law enforcement knew the defendant would be away from the home.

7 7 A defendant does not have standing if no right of privacy of the defendant has been violated. A defendant does not have standing if no right of privacy of the defendant has been violated. Evidence obtained from an abandoned property will not be suppressed. Evidence obtained from an abandoned property will not be suppressed.

8 8 Chapter 10 Where the Exclusionary Rule Does Not Apply

9 9 Evidence found in open fields or when evidence is discovered in plain view Evidence found in open fields or when evidence is discovered in plain view Evidence is obtained where the Good Faith rule or the Honest Mistake rule apply Evidence is obtained where the Good Faith rule or the Honest Mistake rule apply Evidence obtained by a law officer who has lawful authority to seize the evidence Evidence obtained by a law officer who has lawful authority to seize the evidence Where does the Exclusionary Rule Not Apply? (Cont.)

10 10 Evidence obtained in a private search by a private person Evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment is inadmissible. Evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment is inadmissible. This prohibition applies to mistakes or misconducts by police and other officials in the executive branch of govt, NOT by private citizens. This prohibition applies to mistakes or misconducts by police and other officials in the executive branch of govt, NOT by private citizens.

11 11 Evidence obtained in a private search by a private person The exclusionary rule does not apply to private persons The exclusionary rule does not apply to private persons Evidence obtained by private persons, even if the result of illegal conduct, is not subject to…. Evidence obtained by private persons, even if the result of illegal conduct, is not subject to…. *Exclusionary Rule *Exclusionary Rule Supreme Court held in what case? Supreme Court held in what case? *Burdeau v. McDowell *Burdeau v. McDowell

12 12 Exclusionary rule applies in ONLY in criminal cases. The exclusionary rule forbids the use of evidence tainted or spoiled by improper or illegal police conduct in criminal cases. The exclusionary rule forbids the use of evidence tainted or spoiled by improper or illegal police conduct in criminal cases. This evidence can be used in… This evidence can be used in… Civil cases Civil cases Which case did this apply to? Which case did this apply to? O.J. Simpson O.J. Simpson

13 13 If a defendant does not have standing or if no right of privacy of the defendant has been violated The exclusionary rule does not apply The exclusionary rule does not apply Evidence is excluded by the defendant making a motion to suppress that evidence. Evidence is excluded by the defendant making a motion to suppress that evidence. To succeed in this motion, the defendant must show that his rights were violated, not the rights of some other person. To succeed in this motion, the defendant must show that his rights were violated, not the rights of some other person.

14 14 Standing Meaning that the defendant is the proper person to challenge the police conduct because it violated the defendants rights specifically. Meaning that the defendant is the proper person to challenge the police conduct because it violated the defendants rights specifically.

15 15 Evidence obtained from abandoned property will not be suppressed If, by conduct or words, the defendant shows that he/she has relinquished the expectation privacy in property, the object can be used as evidence. If, by conduct or words, the defendant shows that he/she has relinquished the expectation privacy in property, the object can be used as evidence. Which case defined the legal concept of abandonment? Which case defined the legal concept of abandonment? United States v. Thomas, 1989 United States v. Thomas, 1989

16 16 Throwaway as a type of abandonment Persons fleeing the police with illegal drugs or other contraband on their person will throw away what can be very incriminating. Persons fleeing the police with illegal drugs or other contraband on their person will throw away what can be very incriminating. If the throwaway is a voluntary abandonment of the objects, the courts will: If the throwaway is a voluntary abandonment of the objects, the courts will: Allow the object to be used as evidence. Allow the object to be used as evidence. If the throwaway is the direct or indirect product of an illegal police stop or other improper police conduct, the courts will: If the throwaway is the direct or indirect product of an illegal police stop or other improper police conduct, the courts will: Generally forbid the use of the throwaway item as evidence. Generally forbid the use of the throwaway item as evidence.

17 17 Denial of Ownership as a form of abandonment Persons who deny ownership of property to a law enforcement officer relinquish their right of privacy in the property and do not later have a standing to challenge the use of evidence obtained from the property. Persons who deny ownership of property to a law enforcement officer relinquish their right of privacy in the property and do not later have a standing to challenge the use of evidence obtained from the property.

18 18 Examples of denial cases that have come before criminal courts Airport denial of luggage Airport denial of luggage Train passengers denial of a garment bag Train passengers denial of a garment bag Denial of luggage in the trunk of car Denial of luggage in the trunk of car Denial of a satchel that the defendant hid after a car accident. Denial of a satchel that the defendant hid after a car accident. Denial of ownership of an apartment Denial of ownership of an apartment

19 19 Evidence obtained from a garbage or trash Trash receptacles kept in a home or garage have Fourth Amendment constitutional protection. Trash receptacles kept in a home or garage have Fourth Amendment constitutional protection. Evidence obtained from these places without valid consent or a search warrant would be suppressed. Evidence obtained from these places without valid consent or a search warrant would be suppressed. One who disposes of personal property in a trash bin and places it at curbside or in a common trash receptacle generally is held to have abandoned the property. One who disposes of personal property in a trash bin and places it at curbside or in a common trash receptacle generally is held to have abandoned the property. (Calif. v. Greenwood) (Calif. v. Greenwood)

20 20 Abandoned Motor Vehicles United States v. Oswald United States v. Oswald U.S. court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, 783 F.2d 663 (1986) Defendant was transporting $300,000 worth of cocaine in a stolen car when the car caught on fire. Oswald fled from the car thinking it would blow up. He did not report the fire. When the authorities put out the fire they took all of the personal items out of the car before having it towed. They then found the suitcase full of cocaine. Defendant was transporting $300,000 worth of cocaine in a stolen car when the car caught on fire. Oswald fled from the car thinking it would blow up. He did not report the fire. When the authorities put out the fire they took all of the personal items out of the car before having it towed. They then found the suitcase full of cocaine. Because the car was abandoned for more than a hour and half, they were able to use the evidence in court. Because the car was abandoned for more than a hour and half, they were able to use the evidence in court.

21 21 Evidence discovered in open fields WILL NOT be suppressed Curtilage is that area close to a home where persons assert of right of privacy. Curtilage is that area close to a home where persons assert of right of privacy. The protection of the fourth amendment extends to the home and the curtilage. The protection of the fourth amendment extends to the home and the curtilage. U.S. Supreme Court defined curtilage as follows in 1984: U.S. Supreme Court defined curtilage as follows in 1984: Persons living in a single-family home have a greater expectation of privacy in their curtilage than a large apartment building. Persons living in a single-family home have a greater expectation of privacy in their curtilage than a large apartment building.

22 The U.S. Supreme Court held that… Curtilage questions should be resolved with the reference to four factors: Curtilage questions should be resolved with the reference to four factors: The proximity of the area claimed to be curtilage to the home The proximity of the area claimed to be curtilage to the home Whether the area is included within an enclosure surrounding the home Whether the area is included within an enclosure surrounding the home The nature of the uses to which the area is put The nature of the uses to which the area is put The steps taken by the resident to protect the area from observation by the people passing by The steps taken by the resident to protect the area from observation by the people passing by

23 23 Evidence discovered in good faith or honest mistake will not be suppressed The Good Faith Exception The Good Faith Exception 1984, the US Supreme Court case of United States v. Leon 1984, the US Supreme Court case of United States v. Leon The Leon Good Faith rule permits the use of evidence where a search warrant contains a technical error that does not violate a fundamental constitutional right of a suspect. The Leon Good Faith rule permits the use of evidence where a search warrant contains a technical error that does not violate a fundamental constitutional right of a suspect.

24 24 The Honest Mistake Rule U.S. Supreme Court case of Maryland v. Garrison (1987) U.S. Supreme Court case of Maryland v. Garrison (1987) The Supreme Court pointed out that the court has recognized the need to allow some latitude for honest mistakes that are made by officers in the dangerous and difficult process of making arrests and executing search warrants. The Supreme Court pointed out that the court has recognized the need to allow some latitude for honest mistakes that are made by officers in the dangerous and difficult process of making arrests and executing search warrants.


Download ppt "1 Chapter 10 Where the Exclusionary Rule Does Not Apply."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google