The decision in Mapp v. Ohio established that the exclusionary rule applies to evidence gained from an unreasonable search or seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The decision in Miranda v.
Arizona established that the exclusionary rule applies to improperly elicited self-incriminatory statements gathered in violation of the Fifth Amendment , and to evidence gained in situations where the government violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel.
However, the rule does not apply in civil cases, including deportation hearings. See INS v. If evidence that falls within the scope of the exclusionary rule led law enforcement to other evidence , which they would not otherwise have located, then the exclusionary rule applies to the newly discovered evidence , subject to a few exceptions.
Though the rationale behind the exclusionary rule is based in constitutional rights, it is a court-created remedy and deterrent, not an independent constitutional right. The purpose of the rule is to deter law enforcement officers from conducting searches or seizures in violation of the Fourth Amendment and to provide remedies to defendants whose rights have been infringed.
Courts have also carved out several exceptions to the exclusionary rule where the costs of exclusion outweigh its deterrent or remedial benefits. For example, the good-faith exception , below, does not trigger the rule because excluding the evidence would not deter police officers from violating the law in the future. Under the good-faith exception , evidence is not excluded if it is obtained by officers who reasonably rely on a search warrant that turns out to be invalid. See Arizona v.
Also, in Davis v. Supreme Court ruled that the exclusionary rule does not apply when the police conduct a search in reliance on binding appellate precedent allowing the search. Under Illinois v. Krull , evidence may be admissible if the officers rely on a statute that is later invalidated. In Herring v. Evidence initially obtained during an unlawful search or seizure may later be admissible if the evidence is later obtained through a constitutionally valid search or seizure.
Murray v. Additionally, some courts recognize an "expanded" doctrine, in which a partially tainted warrant is upheld if, after excluding the tainted information that lead to its issuance, the remaining untainted information establishes probable cause sufficient to justify its issuance. United States that the federal government could not rely on illegally seized evidence to obtain criminal convictions in federal court.
The ruling in Weeks, however, was limited to the federal government. That changed with the Supreme Court's landmark decision in Mapp v. The case arose when an Ohio woman, Dollree Mapp, refused to allow local police to enter her home without a warrant in their search for a suspected bombing fugitive. Police eventually tricked their way into the house with a false warrant and, after failing to find the suspect, charged Mapp with possessing 'lewd and lascivious' material which they found in a trunk in the basement.
While Mapp's defense attorney cited the Weeks case in seeking to dismiss the charges, he failed to argue that this constitutional prohibition against using illegally obtained evidence should be applied in a state court.
0コメント