2.1.4 Instances Where the Exclusionary Rule Does Not Apply

• Library: Criminal Procedure in Practice (ABA) (2018 Ed.)

2.1.4 Instances Where the Exclusionary Rule Does Not Apply

Generally, the Supreme Court has been reluctant to apply the exclusionary rule beyond the criminal trial itself. Consistently, the question has been whether the cost of exclusion in a particular context outweighs the deterrent benefit of extending the doctrine to a new situation.³⁰ In criminal cases, the primary purpose of the exclusionary rule is to deter constitutional violations by law enforcement officers against citizens. While the rule is therefore not applicable to most civil actions, it has been made available in some quasi-criminal suits. In actions where property may be civilly forfeited as a result of criminal conduct, some courts allow a defendant to seek exclusion of improperly obtained evidence.³¹ However, the exclusionary rule does not apply in deportation hearings³² or tax suits.³³ Moreover, the exclusionary rule is not generally applicable in nontrial proceedings in criminal prosecutions. Evidence seized unconstitutionally may be introduced before the adversary process has formally begun and after a conviction has been entered. Such nontrial settings include grand jury proceedings,³⁴ preliminary examinations,³⁵ bail hearings,³⁶ sentencing hearings,³⁷ and hearings to revoke parole.³⁸

Apart from the good-faith exception, three other limitations on the exclusionary rule are important: (1) its lack of presence in habeas corpus proceedings, (2) its limited use for impeachment, and (3) its inapplicability to remedy knock-and-announce violations. First, the rule has a narrow application in federal habeas corpus proceedings involving state convictions. In making a Fourth Amendment claim, the plaintiff/prisoner may not litigate the underlying search issue. She will prevail only by demonstrating an absence of full and fair adjudication of that issue in state court.³⁹ The rationale is that the cost of extending review of Fourth Amendment claims generally outweighs its usefulness as a deterrent to violations by state law enforcement officers. Therefore, "where the State has provided an opportunity for full and fair litigation of a Fourth Amendment claim, the Constitution does not require that a state prisoner be granted federal habeas corpus relief on the ground that evidence obtained in an unconstitutional search or seizure was introduced at his trial."⁴⁰

Evidence offered for the purpose of impeachment is another major limitation. A prosecutor may introduce evidence obtained in violation of...