Overview
The exclusionary rule prevents the government from using mostevidencegathered in violation of theUnited States Constitution. The decision inMappv. Ohioestablished that the exclusionary ruleapplies toevidencegained from anunreasonable search or seizurein violation of theFourth Amendment.The decision inMiranda v. Arizonaestablished that the exclusionary rule applies to improperly elicited self-incriminatory statements gathered in violation of theFifth Amendment, and toevidencegained in situations where the government violated the defendant'sSixth Amendmentright to counsel. However, the rule does not apply in civil cases, including deportation hearings. SeeINS v. Lopez-Mendoza.
Derivatives of Excluded Evidence
Ifevidencethat falls within the scope of the exclusionary rule led law enforcement to otherevidence, which they would not otherwise have located, then the exclusionary rule applies to the newly discoveredevidence, subject to a few exceptions. The secondarily excludedevidenceis called“fruit of the poisonous tree.”
Though the rationale behind the exclusionaryrule is based in constitutional rights, itis a court-createdremedyand deterrent, not an independentconstitutional right. The purpose of the rule is to deter law enforcement officers from conductingsearches or seizuresinviolation oftheFourth Amendmentand to provideremediesto defendants whoserightshave been infringed. Courts have also carved out several exceptions to the exclusionary rule where the costs of exclusion outweigh its deterrent orremedialbenefits. For example, thegood-faith exception, below, does not trigger therulebecause excluding theevidencewould not deter police officers from violating the law in the future.
Exceptions
Good Faith Exception
Under thegood-faith exception,evidenceis not excluded if it is obtained by officers whoreasonablyrely on asearch warrantthat turns out to be invalid. SeeArizona v. Evans. Also, inDavis v. U.S., theU.S. Supreme Courtruled that the exclusionary rule does not apply when the police conduct asearchin reliance on bindingappellateprecedentallowing the search. UnderIllinois v. Krull,evidencemay beadmissibleif the officers rely on astatutethat is later invalidated. InHerring v. U.S.,the Court found that thegood-faith exceptionto the exclusionary rule applies whenpolice employees erred in maintaining records in awarrantdatabase.
Independent Source Doctrine
Evidenceinitially obtained during an unlawfulsearch or seizuremay later beadmissibleiftheevidenceis later obtained through aconstitutionally validsearch or seizure.Murray v. U.S.is the modern interpretation of the independent source doctrine, originally adopted inNix v. Williams. Additionally, some courts recognize an"expanded" doctrine, in which a partially tainted warrantis upheld if, after excluding the tainted information that led to its issuance,the remaining untainted information establishes probable cause sufficient to justify its issuance. See, for example, the South Dakota Supreme Court decision inState v. Boll.
Inevitable Discovery Doctrine
Related to the independent source doctrine, above, and also adopted inNix v. Williams,the inevitable discovery doctrine allows admission ofevidencethat was discovered in an unlawfulsearch or seizureif it would have be discovered in the same condition anyway, by an independent line of investigation that was already being pursued when the unlawfulsearch or seizureoccurred.
Attenuation Doctrine
In cases where the relationship between theevidencechallenged and the unconstitutional conductis too remote and attenuated, theevidencemay beadmissible. SeeUtah v. Strieff.Brown v. Illinois, cited inStrieff,articulated three factors for the courts to consider when determining attenuation: temporal proximity, the presence of intervening circ*mstances, and the purpose and flagrancy of the official misconduct.
Evidence Admissible for Impeachment
The exclusionary rule does not prevent the government from introducing illegally gatheredevidenceto “impeach,” or attack the credibility of, defendants’testimonyattrial. TheSupreme Courtrecognized this exception inHarris v. New Yorkas a truth-testing device to preventperjury. Even when the government suspectsperjury, however, it may only use taintedevidenceforimpeachment, and may not use it to show guilt.
Qualified Immunity
Due toqualified immunity, the exclusionary rule is often a defendant'sonlyremedywhen police officers conduct anunreasonable searchor violate theirMirandarights. Even if officers violate a defendant'sconstitutionalor statutory rights,qualified immunityprotects the officers from alawsuitunless noreasonableofficer would believe that the officers' conduct was legal.
InVega v. Tekoh (2022)the Supreme Court held that violating Miranda Rights does not provide a basis for a § 1983 claim. Rather, the court asserted that Miranda imposed “a set of prophylactic rules” that only focused on disallowing the use of statements obtained in violation of those rules. Further, the court held that expanding Miranda rights beyond that would impose substantial costs on the judicial system.
[Last updated in November of 2022 by the Wex Definitions Team]
