Week 10 Notes
Week 10 Notes CJ 461
Popular in Criminal Law II
Popular in Criminal Justice
This 3 page Class Notes was uploaded by Alyssa Hendrixson on Friday October 23, 2015. The Class Notes belongs to CJ 461 at University of Alabama - Tuscaloosa taught by Daniel Clay in Summer 2015. Since its upload, it has received 34 views. For similar materials see Criminal Law II in Criminal Justice at University of Alabama - Tuscaloosa.
Reviews for Week 10 Notes
Report this Material
What is Karma?
Karma is the currency of StudySoup.
You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!
Date Created: 10/23/15
The Exclusionary Rule 0 The Exclusionary Rule 0 Evidence obtained in violation of one s constitutional rights is inadmissible TP ESTABLISH GUILTY Included fruit of the poisonous tree derivative evidence Once illegal always illegal o The Silver Platter Doctrine State violation resulting in federal prosecution o Mapp v Ohio 1961 0 Supreme Court stated police executed illegal search because they had no warrant 0 Let woman go even though undeniably guilty evidence became inadmissible 0 14th Amendment Debating the Exclusionary Rule 0 Why do we exclude evidence in violation of constitutional rights Importance of rights Deterrence Judicial integrity 0 What are the costs of exclusion To the state Loses authority power and control To victims 0 Can be a slap in the face To truth seeking Unfair to the truth if some evidence is allowed and some is not 0 Any other viable options Remedies are not always realistic Civil case sue Standing to Challenge Evidence 0 Having authority to challenge evidence 0 Alderman v United States 1969 Introduction to standing 0 Rakas v Illinois 1978 Automobile exclusions 0 Minnesota v Olson 1990 Overnight guests Expectation of privacy 0 Rights were violated so you can sue o Rawlings v Kentucky 1980 Possessory interest in items seized There is standing for exclusion of evidence 0 Minnesota v Carter 1998 Commercial transactions Drug deal at a house police busted the house Illegally searched house Court ruled that they couldn t challenge evidence but homeowners could owner s rights were violated No expectation of privacy if just visiting house Cannot use evidence against homeowners 0 United States v Payner 1980 The target of a police investigation Tax fraud went through briefcase Case stolen by private investigator Police are more interested in whom the briefcase belongs to than the man who stole it Exclusionary Rule does not apply Exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule 0 Collateral Proceeding I Bail Pretrial hearing Sentencing Everything but actual trial 0 Attenuation Removing the Taint United States v Boone Court allowed evidence in lllegally pulled over for narcotics Drove away and started to throw the drugs out of the window in front of police Very important in fruit of the poisonous tree arguments Factors Temporal proximity lntervening circumstances Intentional violation Constitutional interest protected 0 Hudson v Michigan Not going to throw out evidence because police made a mistake 0 Didn t wait long enough and didn t knock Testimony v Physical Evidence 0 Physical evidence is more protected 0 Exclude physical as much as possible when obtained illegally 0 Good Faith Exception Requires an honest and objectively reasonable belief in the legality of a search Ways to establish Good Faith 0 Reliance on a warrant o Unites States v Leon 1984 Reliance on assurance by the judge 0 Mass v Sheppard 1984 o Reliance on legislation 0 Illinois v Krull 1987 Reliance on data form court employee 0 Arizona v Evans 1995 Reliance on apparent third party consent 0 Illinois v Rodriguez 1990 Reliance on a precedent that is overturned 0 Davis v United States 2011 Herring v United States 2009 0 police officer nonintentially violated the law 0 relied in court evidence court clerk 0 Independent Source Doctrine Could have gotten same information from source without violating rights 0 Inevitable Discovery Rule This is why police impound vehicles Nix v Williams 1984 o Impeachment evidence during trial Pornography example Walder v United States Can include inconsistent nonmirandized statements 0 Harris v New York Goal is to prevent perjury Given with a limiting instruction Juries do not listen to limitations cannot unring a bell
Are you sure you want to buy this material for
You're already Subscribed!
Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'