Lecture Notes On Exclusionary Rule And Fruit Of Poisonous Tree Doctrine PDF

Lecture Notes on the Exclusionary Rule and the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine (Article prepared by instructor Migdalia Castillo-Gerding, J.D., LL.M. Material taken and revised from Gilbert Law Summaries and Lawshelf Educational Media) The...

Lecture Notes on the Exclusionary Rule and the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine (Article prepared by instructor Migdalia Castillo-Gerding, J.D., LL.M. Material taken and revised from Gilbert Law Summaries and Lawshelf Educational Media) The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads: "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 Warrant shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or things to be seized." General Principles The exclusionary rule is a remedy for violations of a person’s Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights. The basic principle of the exclusionary rule is that evidence obtained by an illegal search or seizure is not admissible in a criminal proceeding against the victim of the search or seizure as proof of guilt. The rule applies in both federal cases [Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 (1914)] and state cases [Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961)]. The Fourth Amendment limitations apply to any governmental search or seizure. Accordingly, evidence unlawfully obtained by federal officers is inadmissible in state as well as federal cases, and vice versa. One important corollary to the exclusionary rule is the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine. This rule holds that in addition to the material uncovered during the illegal search being inadmissible, any evidence that is later gathered as an indirect result of the illegal search will also be excluded. [Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963)]. General Scope All evidence that has been illegally obtained must be excluded. In addition, the use of other evidence that has been acquired directly or indirectly as a result of an illegal search or arrest (called the tainted fruit of the poisonous tree) is not allowed. [Nardone v. United States, 308 U.S. 338 (1939); Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963)] Example (1): The police illegally search the defendant’s car and find drugs. The drugs will be excluded as evidence in the case against the defendant in accordance with the exclusionary rule. Example (2): The police conduct an illegal search of the defendant’s home and find a map showing the location of a well-hidden, remotely located outdoor marijuana field. The police go to the field and seize the marijuana. Under the doctrine of "fruit of the poisonous tree," the marijuana will be excluded as evidence in the case against the defendant as it stemmed directly from an illegal search. Dissipation of the Taint Evidence otherwise not admissible may be allowed if the prosecution demonstrates that the taint has been removed. This may be accomplished in three ways: 1 (1) Inevitable discovery: If the police would have discovered the evidence regardless of their illegal action, the evidence will be admissible. The prosecution must show “inevitable discovery” by a preponderance of the evidence. If discovery of the evidence was "inevitable", the evidence may be admitted, as it was not then the illegal search that caused the evidence to be found. “Inevitable” is a strong word, and in order to admit evidence under this exception, a court must find that police would have discovered the evidence whether or not they conducted the unreasonable search. [People v. Fitzpatrick, 32 N.Y.2d 499 (1973); Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (1984)] Example (1): The police conduct an illegal search of the defendant’s home and find a map showing the location of an outdoor marijuana field located 50 feet behind the loading dock of a busy commercial strip. The police go to the field and seize the marijuana. The marijuana may be admitted as evidence by a court. Although the police were led to the field by information discovered during an illegal search, a court could find that discovery was inevitable, given the field's proximity to heavily used areas and the fact that the field was not well hidden. Example (2): The police perform an illegal search of Fred’s residence and discover stolen goods. On the counter they find a notepad on which Fred wrote the following: Reminder - place newspaper ad “Computer stuff for sale; cheap and hot! Call Fred 555-1234.” Based on this, the police call the number and that leads them to more evidence against Fred. The discovery was not inevitable as the ad never ran. The evidence will be excluded. (2) Independent source: If the police obtained evidence from an independent source not connected to the illegal search or seizure, the evidence is admissible. [United States v. Crews, 445 U.S. 463 (1980)] Example: If police initially discover evidence during an illegal search of a warehouse, but subsequently discover the same evidence during a valid search, the evidence is admissible. However, to avoid the exclusionary rule, the second search must be totally independent of the first, illegal search. [Murray v. United States, 487 U.S. 533 (1988)] Example: Officer Brady illegally searches Donald’s barn and discovers documents identifying Donald as the culprit behind an internet scam. The next day a confidential informant e-mails Officer Brady the same documents. The documents are admissible as evidence because there was an independent source for the evidence besides the illegal search. (3) Confessions: The illegal taint is also dissipated if there is weak link between the illegal conduct by the police and the challenged evidence. Rationale: The purpose of the exclusionary rule is to deter police misconduct (e.g., illegal arrests) that would result if the police were allowed to use evidence obtained from such misconduct. If the link between the misconduct and the evidence is weak, application of the exclusionary rules serves little purpose since the police did not rely on the illegal conduct to obtain the evidence. Example: Police had probable cause to arrest the defendant for murder. They went to his home without a warrant and arrested him, which violates the Fourth Amendment. [Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980)]. The defendant confessed at home, and then the police took him to the police station, where he confessed again. The Supreme Court held that the first confession must be suppressed as the fruit of an illegal arrest (fruit of the poisonous tree), but the second confession is admissible because it is not a fruit of the unlawful arrest. Because the police had probable cause to arrest the defendant, they didn’t gain anything by the illegal arrest – they could have arrested him the moment he stepped outside of his house and then brought him to the station for a confession. Thus, the subsequent statement was not an exploitation of the illegal 2 entry, i.e., it was not a fruit of the fact that the defendant was arrested at home as opposed to someplace else. [New York v. Harris, 495 U.S. 14 (1990)] But compare: The defendant was arrested without probable cause and brought to the police station. The police read defendant his Miranda warnings three times and permitted him to see two friends. After being at the station for six hours, the defendant confessed. The Supreme Court held that the confession must be excluded because it was the direct result of the illegal arrest – if the defendant had not been arrested illegally, he could not have been in custody and probably he would not have confessed. [Taylor v. Alabama, 457 U.S. 687 (1982)] Enforcement of the Exclusionary Rule The defendant has a right to a suppression hearing outside the jury’s presence, at which a judge decides whether evidence or a confession is admissible. [Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368 (1964)] If the judge decides that the evidence or confession is admissible, the jury may consider it. A defendant has a right to testify at a suppression hearing, and if he does testify, his testimony may not be used against him at trial on the issue of guilt. [Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377 (1968)] The government bears the burden of establishing admissibility of evidence or a confession by a preponderance of the evidence. [Lego v. Twomey, 404 U.S. 477 (1972)] Exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule (1) Impeachment: Illegally seized evidence may be useful to impeach the defendant’s credibility if he testifies in his own behalf at trial. A defendant’s voluntary confession may be used to impeach him even though he was not given the Miranda warnings before giving the confession.. [Harris v. New York, 401 U.S. 222 (1971)]. An involuntary confession may not be used for impeachment purposes. [Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385 (1978)] (2) Physical Evidence: Illegally obtained physical evidence may be used to impeach the defendant’s answers to a prosecutor’s cross-examination questions. Example: At the defendant’s trial for cocaine smuggling, the defendant testified in his own defense. On cross- examination, the defendant denied having cut patches of cotton from one shirt and having sewed them to another shirt to make pockets to conceal cocaine. Furthermore, the defendant denied having a shirt with missing pockets in his luggage when arrested. Over the defendant’s objections, such a shirt found in the defendant’s luggage was allowed to be introduced at trial for the limited purpose of the jury assessing the defendant’s credibility. [United States v. Havens, 446 U.S. 620 (1980)] (3) Private Party Search: Courts will not exclude evidence illegally obtained by a private party acting independently of police direction. However, if the police request or encourage a private party to engage in an illegal search, the exclusionary rule applies. [Burdeau v. McDowell, 256 U.S. 465 (1921)] (4) Police Good Faith: The exclusionary rule does not apply when the police rely in good faith on case law later changed by another judicial opinion. [United States v. Peltier, 422 U.S. 531 (1975)], or on a facially valid statute or ordinance as it then exists, even if the law is later declared unconstitutional or changed by court decision. [Michigan v. DeFillippo, 443 U.S. 31 (1979)]. In addition, evidence will not be excluded where the police rely in good faith on a defective search warrant. [United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984); Massachusetts v. Sheppard, 468 U.S. 981 (1984)] 3 However, there are four exceptions to good faith reliance on a defective search warrant. A police officer cannot get the benefit of the good faith exception if: (a) The affidavit on which the warrant was issued was so lacking in probable cause that no reasonable officer would have relied on it; (b) The warrant is defective on its face (e.g. failure of the warrant to state with particularity the place to be search or the things to be seized), (c) The affiant lied to or misled the magistrate; or (d) The magistrate has wholly abandoned his judicial role. When a search is conducted with a good faith belief that it is a legal search, the evidence discovered may be admitted. [United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984)]. If the officer believes that a warrant is not required for a search, or conducts a search pursuant to a warrant, which he believes to be valid, the officer can be said to be acting in good faith. On the other hand, if he knows or should have known of some defect in the warrant, the good faith exception will not apply. Recently, in Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135 (2009), the Supreme Court made clear that in order “[t]o trigger the exclusionary rule, police conduct must be sufficiently deliberate that exclusion can meaningfully deter it, and sufficiently culpable that such deterrence is worth the price paid by the justice system.” In other words, when police are not deliberately violating the Fourth Amendment and are acting under the auspices that their conduct is permissible, suppression is not merited. Example (1): Officer Clark executes a search in accordance with a search warrant obtained from Judge Hatchet. Unknown to Officer Clark, Judge Hatchet issued the warrant after an incorrect finding of probable cause. Although the search was illegal, the evidence is not tainted and does not fall under the exclusionary rule because Officer Clark acted in good faith upon the judge’s finding. If otherwise relevant and admissible, the evidence may be considered. Example (2): Judge Doe issues a warrant based on Officer Ellen’s sworn testimony that he saw Al Bronco removing stolen shoes from his trunk and carrying them into his home in Big Town, California. The warrant is made out for “that property owned by Mr. Al Bronco in Big Town, California.” Unbeknownst to Judge Doe, Al owns several houses in Big Town, one in which his mother lives and the others which he rents out. Officer Ellen is aware of this, and executes the search of the intended home. Because the warrant is not "precise on its face”, Officer Ellen’s search cannot be said to be in good faith and this exception to the exclusionary rule will not apply. Any evidence discovered from the search or stemming therefrom will be excluded. (5) Grand Jury: Grand jury witnesses may not refuse to answer questions based on illegally seized evidence. [United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338 (1974)]. However, grand jury witnesses may refuse to answer questions based on evidence obtained in violation of the federal wiretapping statute. [Gelbard v. United States, 408 U.S. 41 (1972)] (6) Civil Proceedings: The exclusionary rule does not bar the use of evidence illegally seized by an agent of one sovereign in the civil proceedings of another sovereign. [United States v. Janis, 428 U.S. 433 (1976)] Effect of Exclusionary Rule Violation Provided that a defendant has made a timely motion to suppress, it constitutes error for a court to admit illegal obtained evidence. Such an error requires reversal unless the error is determined to be “harmless.” [Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 1967)] The prosecutor must 4 show beyond a reasonable doubt that the admission of the evidence that should have been excluded was harmless error and did not contribute to the conviction. Certain errors, such as a denial of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel at trial, are never harmless, but the admission of an illegally obtained confession may be harmless error if there is overwhelming evidence of guilt, such as other admissible confessions. [Milton v. Wainwright, 407 U.S. 371 (1972)] Useful Terms Probable Cause: The Constitution requires that an arrest (with or without an arrest warrant) be based on probable cause. This requirement is satisfied when, at the time of arrest, the facts and circumstances within the officers’ knowledge and of which they have reasonably trustworthy information are sufficient to warrant a prudent person to believe that the suspect had committed or was committing an offense. [Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89 (1964)] The police need not obtain a warrant before arresting s person in a public place. In fact, most arrests are made without a warrant (felonies and misdemeanors committed in the presence of the officer). However, police officer must have an arrest warrant to enter a person’s home to arrest him absent exigent (emergency) circumstances or consent. [Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980)] Admissible Evidence: Evidence permitted to be introduced at trial. Only relevant evidence is admissible, which means the evidence must tend to make more or less probable the existence of some fact material to the case, or some fact otherwise of consequence to making a determination in the case. Evidence that tends to establish facts from which one could then infer that some material fact is more or less probable is also admissible as relevant evidence. Excluded Evidence: Evidence that may be otherwise relevant and admissible but is not admitted and may not be considered in the decision-making process for some reason other than irrelevance (e.g., illegally obtained). Fruits of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine: Any evidence gathered as a result of an illegal search, even at a time later than the illegal search itself, will be excluded from evidence. Good Faith: A reasonable, honest belief lacking malice or ill intent and without intention to defraud. The concept of good faith appears in many areas of law, although it is intangible and determined based on the totality of the circumstances rather than some hard and fast rule. The Fourth Amendment and the 'Exclusionary Rule' The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits police officers from conducting unreasonable searches and seizures by requiring them to either have a valid warrant or probable cause. But, what happens if a police officer does conduct a search in violation of the Fourth Amendment and subsequently finds incriminating evidence? Well, that's when the "exclusionary rule" comes into play. The Development of the Exclusionary Rule For the more than 100 years after its ratification, the Fourth Amendment was of little value to criminal defendants because evidence seized by law enforcement in violation of the warrant or reasonableness requirements was still admissible during the defendant's prosecution. The U.S. Supreme Court dramatically changed Fourth Amendment jurisprudence in 1914, however, when it handed down its decision in Weeks v. United States. This case involved the 5 appeal of a defendant who had been convicted based on evidence that had been seized by a federal agent without a warrant or other constitutional justification. In reversing the conviction, the Supreme Court effectively created the exclusionary rule. Then, in 1961, the U.S. Supreme Court made the exclusionary rule applicable to the states with its decision in Mapp v. Ohio. Why Do We Have the Exclusionary Rule? Designed to deter police misconduct, the exclusionary rule enables courts to exclude incriminating evidence from being introduced at trial upon proof that the evidence was procured in violation of a constitutional provision. The rule allows defendants to challenge the admissibility of evidence by bringing a pre-trial motion to suppress the evidence. If the court allows the evidence to be introduced at trial and the jury votes to convict, the defendant can challenge the propriety of the trial court's decision denying the motion to suppress on appeal. If the defendant succeeds on appeal, however, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that double jeopardy principles do not bar retrial of the defendant because the trial court's error wasn't addressing the question of guilt or innocence. Nonetheless, obtaining a conviction in the second trial would be significantly more difficult if the evidence suppressed by the exclusionary rule is important to the prosecution. Companion to the Exclusionary Rule: Fruit of the Poisonous Tree A legal concept that's related to the exclusionary rule is the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine. Under this doctrine, a court may exclude from trial not only evidence that itself was seized in violation of the U.S. Constitution, but also any other evidence that is derived from an illegal search. For example, suppose a defendant is arrested for kidnapping and later confesses to the crime. If a court subsequently declares that the arrest was unconstitutional, the confession will also be deemed tainted and ruled inadmissible at any prosecution of the defendant on the kidnapping charge. Created by Findlaw’s team of legal writers and editors. The Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine The “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine is an evidentiary rule that, together with the exclusionary rule, gives the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution its teeth. Prior to 1914, warrantless and other shady searches conducted by law enforcement were quite common in America and were detrimental to those facing criminal charges from the evidence obtained during the searches. However, in 1914, things started to change. The United States Supreme Court took up the case of Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383, 34 S. Ct.341, 58 L. Ed. 652 (1914), wherein a warrantless search of a home belonging to a man named Fremont Weeks was searched and the evidence that was found was used to convict him of illegal gambling. The case reached the land’s highest court, where ultimately the justices ruled that evidence obtained in this manner was not able to be used in court. Weeks had his conviction overturned and the exclusionary rule was introduced. The exclusionary rule was the precursor to the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine. This legal metaphor regards tainted evidence (fruit) obtained through illegal searches or other police misconduct (the poisonous tree) as inadmissible in court. For example, you are driving and are 6  stopped by the police because you were speeding. You are clearly not impaired by drugs or alcohol, yet the police ask to search your vehicle. You politely refuse to grant consent, yet the search is done anyway and the police find a pound of marijuana in the trunk of your car. A good criminal defense attorney should be able to have your charges dismissed because the search itself was illegal. This rule would also apply if, during questioning by police, a suspect asks for access to a lawyer but police ignore the request and keep questioning him or her. Hours later, under duress and tired from the interrogation, the suspect winds up confessing to robbing a bank. Such a confession is now tainted because the police failed to stop questioning the suspect after a request for an attorney was made. As with most rules, however, there are exceptions to this exclusion. The Four Main Exemptions 1. The evidence was found, at least in part, as a result of another untainted or independent source. 2. Despite the tainted source, the evidence would inevitably have been discovered anyway. 3. Attenuation exists between an illegal activity and its discovery by law enforcement. 4. While the search warrant (or lack thereof) was not intrinsically valid, it was executed by agents of the government who were found to be acting in good faith. As you can see, the rules regarding the admissibility of evidence in criminal cases are complex and subject to nuance and interpretation. Prosecutors will argue vociferously in court that the evidence should be introduced at trial, is not tainted and was legally obtained. A defendant without a criminal defense attorney in possession of a vast knowledge of evidentiary rules and exceptions is at a distinct disadvantage at trial. But hope is not lost if you are convicted on bad evidence, as this can be taken up on appeal with the conviction ultimately being overthrown by a higher court’s ruling. © 1995-2019 LawInfo, part of Thomson Reuters. What Does “Fruit of the Poisonous Tree” Mean in Criminal Proceedings? The “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine prevents the prosecution from admitting certain evidence into a criminal case after it has been tainted by a primary illegality. This doctrine is meant to remove illegally-acquired evidence from negatively impacting a criminal defendant. Background Information The “fruit of the poisonous tree” is an extension to the exclusionary rule. The exclusionary rule requires that evidence that is illegally obtained should be excluded from admission in a criminal trial. The fruit of the poisonous tree takes the assessment one step further by excluding evidence that stemmed from the primary illegality, the poisonous tree. For example, if there is an illegal interrogation that leads to physical evidence, the exclusionary rule prohibits the introduction of the interrogation in the criminal trial. Additionally, the physical evidence is excluded because it is the fruit of the illegal process. The purpose behind this doctrine is to deter police misconduct. The original illegal evidence is considered to be the poisonous tree, and any evidence that stems from this tree is similarly tainted by the poison. 7 Application The fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine applies to both physical evidence and live testimony that was obtained through illegal means. It also applies to evidence acquired directly from the illegal taint or indirectly from it, with the exceptions noted below. The most common way this doctrine is applied is through a defense motion to exclude evidence that would adversely affect the defendant’s case that derived from an unlawful search. Legal Standard The United States Supreme Court has decided a number of cases related to this doctrine. In the case of United States v. Rey, one justice stated that for the exclusion of evidence to be ordered, the police misconduct must have been “sufficiently deliberate” that future similar conduct would be deterred due to the exclusion and that such future deterrence would be worth the cost to the justice system. The doctrine was designed to deter police misconduct that is reckless, deliberate or grossly negligent. However, it can also be used to correct widespread systemic negligence. Independent Source Doctrine Even if evidence was originally discovered by an unlawful search, the evidence can still be admitted in some cases. This can occur when the same evidence is obtained in an independent manner that was not tainted by the primary illegality. The court assesses whether the evidence that is at stake was discovered by exploitation of the primary and initial illegality or if it was uncovered by independent means that are sufficiently purged of the primary illegality. Because evidence that is acquired through an independent source is not fruit of the poisonous tree, it is not required to be excluded. For example, in one case, an officer entered a home illegally without a valid search warrant. An application for a search warrant was later obtained that was based on factual information that did not rely on the officer’s illegal entry. Evidence was seized from the home. The court ruled that the evidence did not need to be excluded, despite the illegal search. The independent source doctrine is not affected by the public policy concerns of the” fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine. For example, courts are not concerned with deterring future misconduct when the evidence is independently acquired without relation to the evidence being tainted. Instead, this doctrine allows police to return to the same position as they would have been had there never been any illegal taint. Other Exceptions One more exception to the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine is inevitable discovery. This exception does not require the exclusion of the illegally-obtained evidence if it was inevitable that it would have eventually been discovered by law enforcement. This means that the police would have found the evidence even without the illegal search. An exception to the exclusionary rule itself is good faith. If the court finds that a law enforcement officer believed in good faith that a search was legal, the court may not exclude the evidence in the criminal trial. Provided by HG.org ©1996-2019 All Rights Reserved HG.org Legal Resources - HGExperts.com 8  Exceptions to the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine As we all know, our criminal justice system (courts, law enforcement, jails/prisons) is not perfect, far from it, but it's the best we've got. A big part of what makes our system work at all are the laws, principles, and procedures put in place to create order. They are intended to ensure fairness in how laws are administered and how defendants are treated throughout the criminal justice process. The “fruits of the poisonous tree” doctrine, or rule, is designed to prevent illegal searches. It was created in 1920 as a result of a United States Supreme Court decision, Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States. This rule is an extension of the exclusionary rule which says that any evidence that is illegally seized cannot be used in court against the defendant. According to the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, every citizen has the right to be secure in their persons and homes. What's most important to know for this particular issue is that a search of your body and/or personal property is illegal without a warrant or probable cause. If a cop finds a gun under the seat of your car, but had no reason to pull you over and search your car, the search would be deemed illegal and the gun -- in most cases -- would not be admissible in court. The illegal search itself is considered the poisonous tree, and the gun is considered the fruit. The “fruits of the poisonous tree” doctrine was established to prevent police misconduct, specifically as it relates to searches and seizures. Exceptions to the Rule There are quite a few exceptions to this doctrine, but we'll take a look at the four main categories. The first is the inevitable discovery exception. In this case, evidence can still be admitted into a court of law, even if it was illegally obtained, if the same evidence would have inevitably been discovered anyway. For example, you call 911 regarding a domestic issue. The officer arrives and you invite him into your home. The officer decides to search your home for drugs. During the search, he finds a bag of cocaine laying on the kitchen table in plain sight. Yes, the search was illegal; however, the drugs would have easily been discovered in the absence of an illegal search because it was lying there in clear view of the officer. The second exception is called attenuation. If the link between an illegal search and legally admissible evidence is thin, the evidence is admissible, even if the illegal search may have set in motion the chain of events that led to evidence being revealed. For example, in the case of Wong Sun vs. United States (1963), Sun was arrested for being accused of giving drugs to an acquaintance for distribution. Officers illegally searched his home and arrested him. Sun was released on his own recognizance. Sun voluntarily returned to the police station to tell the cops that he did provide an acquaintance with heroin, but he refused to sign any statements. His verbal statement was used in court against him, so his attorney decided to take this case all the way to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled that the search was illegal, but the statements that Sun voluntarily gave to officers could still be used in court since he was not forced to give this statement and his Miranda rights were read. In this case, the link between the illegal search and the confession was thin. The third exception is due to independent evidence. If evidence is first discovered illegally, but then legally found later, it is admissible in court. Say you are selling stolen motorcycles. An officer illegally pokes around the back room of your repair shop and finds a Faraday cage, which is used to disable tracking devices. She can't do anything about it. But if another officer later gets a tip from an informant and gets a warrant, they can come, do the search again, and 9 use any evidence they find in court. Note that the officer can't simply get a warrant by saying she saw your Faraday cage -- they have to be unconnected. The fourth major exception is called the good-faith exception. If officers believe they are conducting a legal search with a valid warrant, the evidence stands. Say that they are investigating you for counterfeiting and are awarded a warrant to search your house. They find incriminating records and bring you to court on the strength of the search. Examining the warrant, the judge finds that it's defective -- maybe it provided an inaccurate description of your house -- but not so defective that a 'reasonable person' should have spotted the error and applied for a new warrant. In any poisonous fruit case, there's room for human error. Police can claim that a warrant request is unrelated to a first, illegal search, even if the first search caused them to go looking for informants. They can also claim not to notice a defective warrant if they think time is of the essence. We rely on judges, and in some cases, juries, to make sure justice is served. Summary The “fruits of the poisonous tree” doctrine is a rule that was created to deter law enforcement from engaging in illegal searches and seizures. It protects the defendant from being convicted due to officers' lawbreaking. The rule says that if any evidence is acquired by illegal means, it cannot be used against the defendant in a court of law. There are, however, four major exceptions to this rule: inevitable discovery, attenuation, independent evidence and good faith. This doctrine, based on Fourth Amendment rights, helps to establish order and fairness within the justice system by regulating an officer's code of conduct. It helps to protect an individual's constitutional rights. Though our system is far from perfect, it is workable due to principles like the “fruits of the poisonous tree” doctrine. © Copyright 2003-2019 Study.com. All other trademarks and copyrights are the property of their respective owners. All rights reserved. Brief Summary of Relevant Cases Involving the Exclusionary Rule The exclusionary rule is a judge‐made rule that evidence obtained by the government in violation of a defendant's constitutional rights can't be used against him or her. By filing a motion to suppress before the trial asking the judge to rule the evidence as inadmissible, a defendant may prevent the prosecution from using illegally obtained evidence. The exclusionary rule usually applies to suppression of physical evidence (for example, a murder weapon, stolen property, or illegal drugs) that the police seize in violation of a defendant's Fourth Amendment right not to be subjected to unreasonable search and seizure. Weeks v. U.S. (1914) The exclusionary rule was invented in Weeks v. U.S. Weeks is premised on the idea that when the police exceed their constitutional authority in conducting a search, then that search must be null and void. At the time of Weeks, the Bill of Rights was considered to apply only to the federal government. Mapp v. Ohio (1961) In Mapp, the liberal Warren Court extended the Weeks exclusionary rule to state courts. The Warren Court held that the exclusionary rule is part of a citizen's Fourth Amendment right and 10 that the rule was needed because the states had not devised any effective remedies to the problem of arbitrary searches by police. Some police administrators and politicians denounced Mapp for handcuffing the police. U.S. v. Leon (1984) Lack of support for the rule among conservative U.S. Supreme Court justices who succeeded the liberal members of the Warren Court to the bench has limited the rule's impact. In a series of cases, the Court held that illegally obtained evidence could be used as the basis for grand jury questions, by the Internal Revenue Service in a civil tax proceeding, and in deportation hearings. In U.S. v. Leon, the Court carved out the good faith exception: if the police make an honest mistake in conducting a search—that is, if the police act on the basis of a search warrant which a court later declares invalid—the seized evidence is still admissible. Search and Seizure - The Exclusionary Rule and The Fruit Of The Poisonous Tree Doctrine A criminal defendant's claim of unreasonable search and seizure is usually heard in a suppression hearing before the presiding trial judge. This hearing is conducted before trial to determine what evidence will be suppressed or excluded from trial. When a judge deems a search unreasonable, he or she frequently applies the exclusionary rule. For the entire nineteenth century, a Fourth Amendment violation had little consequence. Evidence seized by law enforcement from a warrantless or otherwise unreasonable search was admissible at trial if the judge found it reliable. This made the Fourth Amendment essentially meaningless to criminal defendants. But in 1914, the U.S. Supreme Court devised a way to enforce the Fourth Amendment. In Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383, 34 S. Ct. 341 (1914), a federal agent conducted a warrantless search for evidence of gambling at the home of Fremont Weeks. The evidence seized in the search was used at trial, and Weeks was convicted. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment barred the use of evidence secured through a warrantless search and seizure. Weeks's conviction was reversed and thus was born the exclusionary rule. The exclusionary rule is a judicially created remedy used to deter police misconduct in obtaining evidence. Under the exclusionary rule, a judge may exclude incriminating evidence from a criminal trial if there was police misconduct in obtaining the evidence. Without the evidence, the prosecutor may lose the case or drop the charges for lack of proof. This rule provides some substantive protection against illegal search and seizure. The exclusionary rule was constitutionally required only in federal court until Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 81 S. Ct. 1684 (1961). In Mapp, the Court held that the exclusionary rule applied to state criminal proceedings through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Before the Mapp ruling, not all states excluded evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment. After Mapp, a defendant's claim of unreasonable search and seizure became commonplace in criminal prosecutions. The application of the exclusionary rule has been significantly limited by a “good faith” exception created by the Supreme Court in United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 104 S. Ct. 3405 (1984). Under the good faith exception, evidence obtained in violation of a person's Fourth Amendment rights will not be excluded from trial if the law enforcement officer, though mistaken, acts reasonably. For example, if an officer reasonably conducts a search relying on information that is later proved to be false, any evidence seized in the search will not be excluded if the officer acted in good faith, with a reasonable reliance on the information. The 11 Supreme Court has carved out this exception to the exclusionary rule because, according to a majority of the Court, the rule was designed to deter police misconduct, and excluding evidence when the police did not misbehave would not deter police misconduct. A companion to the exclusionary rule is the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine, established by the Supreme Court in Nardone v. United States, 308 U.S. 338, 60 S. Ct. 266 (1939). Under this doctrine, a court may exclude from trial any evidence derived from the results of an illegal search. For example, assume that an illegal search has garnered evidence of illegal explosives. This evidence is then used to obtain a warrant to search the suspect's home. The exclusionary rule excludes the evidence initially used to obtain the search warrant, and the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine excludes any evidence obtained in a search of the home. Citizens' Rights: A Barrier to Justice? Historically, the U.S. Supreme Court has tried to seek a balance between the rights of the accused and police powers to apprehend criminals. Critics assert that the exclusionary rule and Miranda warnings undermine effective law enforcement. The exclusionary rule and the Miranda warnings should be abolished. The Miranda rule blocks law enforcement from obtaining confessions during police interrogations. It sets free guilty criminals so they can victimize society again. If legal “technicalities” such as the exclusionary rule and the Miranda rule were eliminated, there would be less crime because more criminals would be locked up and restrained from preying upon the public. There are better means of enforcing constitutional protections than Miranda. One replacement for Miranda would be to videotape or record police interrogations. Miranda sends the wrong symbolic message: It is more important to protect criminals' rights than to protect innocent people. There is no empirical evidence to show that the exclusionary rule deters illegal police conduct. Expanding the legal liability of police departments and setting up compensation funds for money damages would make the police respect individual rights more than the exclusionary rule does. The costs of the exclusionary rule are too high—it impedes justice by freeing thousands of criminals each year and by establishing legal grounds for appeals that inundate appellate courts. The exclusionary rule and the Miranda warnings should not be abolished. The Miranda rule has not impeded the flow of confessions. Confessions are given as readily now as they were before Miranda. If the exclusionary rule and the Miranda rule were abolished, innocent persons would have fewer rights. It is impossible to protect the innocent without also protecting the guilty. If we eliminate Miranda, then police officers could ignore a suspect's request not to be interrogated. Miranda is necessary to protect the Fifth Amendment's prohibition against a person's being “compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” Miranda sends the right message: courts will not condone unlawful police conduct that produces confessions. This judicial integrity argument holds that a court should nullify and distance itself from a constitutional violation rather than admit the evidence and 12  allow the government to profit from its own wrongdoing. This denial of court assistance to perpetuate a constitutional wrong is needed to maintain respect for the Constitution and for the independence of the judiciary. The real value of the exclusionary rule is that it offers a vision of what constitutes good police work. A good police officer is one who looks to the Constitution for guidance in defining his or her mission. The exclusionary rule is less costly than its critics assume. One study estimates that only between 0.6 and 2.35 percent of all felony arrests are lost at any stage in the arrest disposition process (including trials and appeals) because of the exclusionary rule. (The rate of lost arrests is higher in drug possession offenses, but much lower in violent crime cases.) Moreover, the costs of abandoning the exclusionary rule are too high—despite its flaws, the exclusionary rule is the best we can realistically do in enforcing Fourth Amendment rights and protecting civil liberties. Evaluating the exclusionary rule and the Miranda rule Both the exclusionary rule and the Miranda rule block the police from acquiring valuable evidence in some cases. But the predominating view of most academics and most law enforcement professionals is that these rules have relatively little impact on the overall ability of the police to apprehend criminals. Miranda doesn't eliminate police interrogations or confessions. In spite of the Miranda warnings, a substantial number of suspects waive their rights and continue to talk with police. Positive effects of the exclusionary rule and Miranda include increasing citizens' awareness of their constitutional rights and inspiring the police to follow the Constitution. © 2020 Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. 13