I. criminal procedure overview 3
I. FOURTH AMENDMENT REMEDIES
Download 464.2 Kb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- 2. Good faith exception to exclusionary rule
- 3. Other remedies
I. FOURTH AMENDMENT REMEDIES1. The Exclusionary RuleExclusionary Rule: A remedy that enables the court to suppress evidence at criminal trial where the evidence was obtained in violation of the Constitution (i.e. unreasonable search/seizure under the 4th Amend) (Weeks) (p.340)
Mapp v. Ohio (1961) (p.340) (exclusionary rule applies to states as well as federal govt) Facts: Police came to house pursuant to info that someone was hiding there. Officers knock on door and ask to be let in. The owner, Mrs M (after phoning her attorney) refuses entry. Officers force their way into the house by kicking down one of the doors. Attorney arrives and officers prevent him from seeing Mrs M. Police claim to have a “warrant” but won’t give it to her (no evidence of a warrant is ever produced at trial). Police conduct thorough search of house and find lewd material. Held: Exclusionary rule also applies to states under the 14th Amend Due Process Clause. Previously, it had not applied to states (per Wolf decided in 1949). Factual considerations in Wolf no longer apply (back then, nearly 2/3rd of states opposed to ER, whereas now nearly half have adopted it; also need to protect judicial integrity, allowing states to admit unlawfully seized evidence encourages disobedience to the Const. and incentivizes Feds to “walk across the street” and provide such evidence to states to prosecute, i.e. differences b/w state and federal rules were an invitation to evasion between both levels of law enforcement; otherwise 4th Amend right to privacy and to be secure from rude invasions is an “empty promise”). Concurrence (Black): The 4th Amend text alone doesn’t contain provision expressly precluding use of evidence seized unreasonably, but when taken together with the 5th Amend ban against self-incrimination, a constitutional basis requires the exclusionary rule. Harlan (Dissent): Need for judicial restraint, stare decisis, when deciding to overrule past decisions. Also, need to be mindful of rights of states. 2. Good faith exception to exclusionary ruleGood faith exception: The exclusionary rule will not apply where the officer has acted in good faith and his reliance upon a warrant was objectively reasonable in the circumstances (Leon) Leon (1984) (p.658) (exclusionary rule does not apply where officer acts in good faith reliance upon a warrant) Facts: Tip from informant that people selling drugs from house. Police do extensive surveillance and see people coming and going with small packages. Based on this info, officer applies for a search warrant (that was reviewed by several DAs before) and issued by a magistrate. Search is executed which reveals drugs. D challenges search based on insufficient PC to support warrant. Held: Officer acted in good faith and his reliance on the warrant was objectively reasonable and the extreme sanction of exclusion is inappropriate in the circumstances (“good faith exception”). The affidavit was not “bare bones” and contained details of extensive investigation, and even state appeal judges were in disagreement as to whether there was enough for PC. The primary rationale for the exclusionary rule (i.e. to deter police misconduct) does not apply in relation to judicial officers incentives for police misconduct are not present Officer cannot be expected to question the validity of the magistrate’s determination effectively penalizing the officer for the magistrate’s mistake Prof: This is essentially a “magistrate exception” for when they get the PC wrong. Evans (1995) (p.668) (Good faith applies to arrest made in reliance upon court error) Facts: Police stop car and enter D’s name in a computer in police car which states that he is wanted on an outstanding arrest warrant (in fact it was a mistake due to an error in the court’s clerk office). Officers arrest D and search car finding drugs. Held: Good faith exception applied – drugs found during search were admissible despite mistaken arrest. ER meant to deter police not court clerks. Officers would have been derelict in their duty if they failed to make the arrest based on the information in the computer. Herring (2009) (p.669) (Good faith excep. can apply to police error – extension of Leon to police error) Facts: D arrested based on a mistake about outstanding warrant due to error by another police employee in neighboring county. Officer had called neighboring county to check if there was a warrant outstanding and after being told that there was, asked to be faxed a copy. Officer then arrested D. However, after D had been arrested it was discovered that the warrant had been previously recalled. Held: Good faith exception in Leon extended to apply to police error. Question turns on the culpability of police and potential exclusion to deter wrongful police conduct. Officer reasonably believed that there was an active warrant. In this case, the error was because of isolated negligence by another police employee (no suggestion that errors are routine) therefore the evidence should not be suppressed (however, if police had been shown to be reckless in maintaining warrant system then ER would suppress evidence). 3. Other remediesDamages (p.353) Unconstitutional searches/seizures may give rise to tort claims such as false arrest or trespass Problem is that qualified immunity of officers limits government’s liability for damages Harm may not be substantial enough Injunctions (p.355) Hard to get for police misconduct as need to establish likelihood that plaintiff will suffer from the same police misconduct again in the future LA v. Lyons (p.355): claim for future relief failed to raise “actual case or controversy” because no grounds to believe that claimant would in the future be subjected to police chokehold again Criminal prosecutions (p.357) Criminal prosecution of officers for breach of D’s constitutional rights is possible but rare (however, was used to prosecute officers who beat Rodney King) Administrative and political remedies (p.359) Police regulation and discipline of officers, but this is mainly directed at deterring police misconduct rather than compensating victims Directory: sites -> default -> files -> upload documents upload documents -> Torts Outline Daniel Ricks upload documents -> Torts outline Functions of Tort Law upload documents -> Constitutional Law (Yoshino, Fall 2009) Table of Contents upload documents -> Arrest: (1) pc? (2) Warrant required? upload documents -> Civil procedure outline upload documents -> Criminal Procedure: Police Investigation upload documents -> Regulation of Agricultural gmos in China upload documents -> Rodriguez Con Law Outline Judicial Review and Constitutional Interpretation upload documents -> Standing Justiciability (§ 501 Legal/beneficial owner of exclusive right? “Arising under” jx?) 46 Statute of Limitations Run? 46 Is Π an Author? 14 Is this a Work of Joint Authorship? 14 Is it a Work for Hire? upload documents -> Fed Courts Outline: 26 Pages Download 464.2 Kb. Share with your friends:
|