G. Mapp Hearing
Jurisdiction | New York |
G. Mapp Hearing
The burden of proof at a suppression hearing involving the seizure of physical evidence is on the defendant, who must meet the burden by a preponderance of the evidence.
The prosecution has the burden of showing the legality of police conduct in the first instance.494 Thereafter, the accused seeking to challenge the propriety of a search has the burden of showing that it was unlawful.495 Where the issue is whether the police had an independent source of probable cause, not tainted by the fruit of an unlawful detention or entry, the prosecution has the burden of establishing this by clear and convincing evidence.496 Where probable cause was based upon information from an informant, the court may elect to conduct a so-called Darden hearing.497
At the Mapp hearing, hearsay is admissible to establish any material fact.498
Where a police radio communication contains probable cause, the receiver is justified in making a search or seizure based on the communication.499 The defense may attack the existence of the communication or challenge the receiver's recollection of the communication.500 Where the challenge to the radio communication is specific and raises a substantial issue as to the lawfulness of the arrest, the People may be required to call the sender of the information at the suppression hearing.501 Ordinarily, the sender need not be called to testify at the suppression hearing.502
1. "Fruit of the Poisonous Tree" Doctrine
Evidence seized pursuant to unlawful conduct by the police is inadmissible against the accused.503 However, if the connection between the unlawful conduct and the evidence obtained is sufficiently attenuated, the evidence is admissible.
A statement made by the accused shortly after an illegal arrest is inadmissible as a "fruit" of the arrest.504 Where the accused is interrogated without Miranda rights, makes a statement, is read his or her rights, and repeats the statement, the confession is inadmissible (on the theory that "the cat has already been let out of the bag").505
A consent to search that results from an improper police inquiry is invalid.506
Physical evidence recovered as the result of an unlawful seizure must be suppressed.507 Where it is discovered as a result of an illegally obtained statement, the physical evidence must be suppressed.508 Similarly, where a statement is obtained from the accused after confronting the accused with illegally obtained physical evidence, the statement must be suppressed.509
Where the accused is identified in a lineup or show-up following an arrest without probable cause, evidence of the identification procedure must be suppressed.510 However, the in-court identification will not be suppressed, so long as the witness has an independent source for the identification.511
2. Independent Source and Inevitable Discovery
Where the prosecution can show that independent and untainted evidence exists that would have justified the search and seizure, or where the evidence that was illegally seized would have been "inevitably" discovered by lawful means, the illegally obtained evidence will be admitted.512 The "inevitable discovery" doctrine requires a very high degree of probability that evidence would have been obtained independently of the tainted source.513
3. Challenging a Search Warrant
A search warrant may be challenged on three grounds:
1. The affidavit contained perjurious statements or statements made with reckless disregard for their truth.514
2. The affidavit does not allege probable cause.
3. The warrant authorized an improper search or was...
To continue reading
Request your trial