A Exclusionary Rule and Derivative Evidence

• Library: Illinois Decisions on Search and Seizure (2017 Ed.)

A. Exclusionary Rule and Derivative Evidence

1. Development of Exclusionary Rule

Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (1886) (holding the Fourth and Fifth Amendments "apply to all invasions of the part of the government and its employees of the sanctity of a man's home and the privacies of life. It is not the breaking of his doors, and the rummaging of his drawers.but it is the invasion of his indefeasible right of personal security, personal liberty and private property.. It is the duty of courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon").

Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 (1914) ("If letters and private documents can thus be seized and held and used in evidence against a citizen accused of an offense, the protection of the 4th Amendment, declaring his right to be secure against such searches and seizures, is of no value, and, so far as those thus placed are concerned, might as well be stricken from the Constitution").

Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961) (finding remedies beyond the exclusionary rule for assuring police compliance with the Fourth Amendment have proven "worthless," so the exclusionary rule is imposed on the states by way of the due process clause. "[T]he purpose of the exclusionary rule 'is to deter—to compel respect for the constitutional guaranty in the only effectively available way—by removing the incentive to disregard it." Further, the exclusionary rule is necessitated by the "imperative of judicial integrity." * * * Our government "teaches the whole people by its example.. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy").

2. "Fruit of the Poisonous Tree" Doctrine

Davis v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 131 S. Ct. 2419 (2011) (Police officers arrested the defendant, a passenger in a vehicle, during a routine vehicle stop for giving a false name. After handcuffing the defendant and securing the scene, the officers searched the vehicle and found a revolver belonging to the defendant. Defendant was then indicted for being a felon in possession of a firearm. In his motion to suppress, the defendant acknowledged that the search of his vehicle complied with existing Eleventh Circuit precedent interpreting New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454 (1981) but raised a Fourth Amendment challenge to preserve the issue on appeal. While awaiting his appeal, the Supreme Court decided Arizona v. Gant, 555 U.S. 135 (2009), and clarified when an officer may not search a vehicle as incident to the arrest of a recent occupant unless: (1) the arrestee is unsecured and within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search; or (2) evidence relevant to the crime of arrest is located in the vehicle. The Eleventh Circuit held that the officers engaged in an unlawful search under Gant but declined to suppress the revolver and reverse the defendant's conviction. They ruled that penalizing the arresting officer for following binding appellate precedent would do nothing to deter Fourth Amendment...