{"id":14239,"date":"2018-02-18T02:58:23","date_gmt":"2018-02-18T02:58:23","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/reunitethestates.org\/?page_id=14239"},"modified":"2018-02-20T04:33:53","modified_gmt":"2018-02-20T04:33:53","slug":"exclusionary-rules-various-rules-that-exclude-or-suppress-evidence-obtained-in-violation-of-a-persons-constitutional-rights","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/reunitethestates.org\/?page_id=14239","title":{"rendered":"exclusionary rules – rules that exclude or suppress evidence obtained via unreasonable search and seizure:"},"content":{"rendered":"

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 This page is continued from Criminal Law Self-Help<\/a> >>>> Preliminary Hearing or Grand jury Proceeding<\/a> >>>> Pretrial Discovery (criminal)<\/a>:<\/span>
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n

***************************<\/p>\n

exclusionary rule<\/span>:<\/span>
\n<\/strong>(1855)<\/span><\/p>\n

1.<\/strong> Evidence<\/em>. Any rule that excludes or suppresses evidence<\/strong> <despite many exceptions, hearsay has long been inadmissible under an exclusionary rule>.<\/strong> \u2014 aka exclusionary evidence rule<\/strong><\/em><\/span>.\u00a0 <\/span><\/p>\n

2.<\/strong> Criminal procedure<\/em>. A rule that excludes or suppresses evidence obtained in violation of an accused person\u2019s constitutional rights<\/strong> <in accordance with the exclusionary rule, the court did not admit the drugs into evidence because they had been obtained during a\u00a0warrantiess search of the defendant\u2019s home>.<\/strong>
\n<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Excerpt from Wayne R. LaFave and Jerold H. Israel,<\/span> Criminal Procedure<\/em><\/a> (2d ed. 1992) (quoting Elkins v. U.S<\/em>., 364 U.S. 206, 80 S.Ct. 1437 (1960)<\/span>; U.S. v. Calandra<\/em>, 414 U.S. 338, 94 S.Ct. 613 (1974)<\/span> (dissent)<\/span>):<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u201cThe deterrence of unreasonable searches and seizures is a major purpose of the exclusionary rule. . . . But the rule serves other purposes as well. There is, for example, . . . \u2018the imperative of judicial integrity,\u2019 namely, that the courts do not become \u2018accomplices in willful disobedience of a Constitution they are sworn to uphold.\u2019 . . . A third purpose of the exclusionary rule . . . is that of \u2018assuring the people \u2014 all potential victims of unlawful government conduct\u00a0\u2014 that the government would not profit from its lawless behavior, thus minimizing the risk of seriously undermining popular trust in the government.<\/span>\u201d<\/strong> [4]<\/span><\/p>\n

1. The rule of constitutional law that evidence secured by the police by means of an unreasonable search and seizure, in violation of the Fourth Amendment, cannot be used as evidence in a criminal prosecution.<\/strong> [3]<\/span><\/p>\n

Various Exclusionary Rules:<\/span>
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n

fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree doctrine<\/span><\/a> \u2013 evidence derived from an illegal search, arrest, or interrogation is inadmissible because the evidence (the \u201cfruit\u201d) was tainted by the illegality (the \u201cpoisonous tree\u201d). <\/span><\/strong>\u2014 aka fruits doctrine<\/strong><\/em><\/span>.<\/span>
\n<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

inevitable-discovery rule<\/span><\/a> – evidence obtained indirectly from an illegal search is admissible, and the illegality is harmless, if the evidence would have been obtained nevertheless in the ordinary course of police work.\u00a0<\/strong>\u2014 aka inevitable-discovery doctrine<\/strong><\/em><\/span>; inevitable-disclosure doctrine<\/strong><\/em><\/span>.<\/span><\/p>\n