The Exclusionary Rule is unique to the Criminal Justice System of the United States. It is often blamed for giving criminals more rights than the victim has, but many claim without the Exclusionary Rule the rights of all citizens are at risk. The Exclusionary Rule is a series of court decisions made by the U.S. Supreme Court that states that any evidence obtained illegally cannot be used in a court of law. According to the Fifth Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution every citizen of the United States is granted the right of Due Process, which means a fair hearing. The Exclusionary Rule expands these rights of fairness to include the processing of criminal offenders prior to appearing in court.
Important Cases Affecting the Exclusionary Rule
Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 1920
When Warrants Are Not Required
Freemont Weeks was suspected by the federal government of using the US Mail to sell lottery tickets. This was and is a federal crime. Weeks was arrested and federal agents went to Weeks home to conduct a search for evidence. At this time federal agents did not routinely secure warrants before conducting a search. While conducting the search, the agents seized evidence, and as well, they took items that were personal in nature (clothes, papers, books, and candy)
Before the case went to trial, Weeks’ attorney requested that all the personal items taken by the agents be returned. Week’s attorney claimed the materials had been taken illegally. The Judge agreed with Weeks and ordered the personal property returned. However, based on the evidence that was retained, Weeks was found guilty, and subsequently sent to prison. His attorney appealed the case to the US Supreme Court, arguing that if some of Weeks’ belongings were taken illegally then all of it was taken illegally. The Court agreed and overturned Weeks’ conviction.
Silverthorne Lumber Co. v US (1926)
Frederick Silverthorne and his sons operated a lumber company and were accused by federal agents of avoiding paying taxes. The Silverthorne's were asked to turn over their books. Invoking their right not to incriminate themselves, they refused. Without a warrant federal agents went to the lumber company and conducted a search and confiscated the books of the company. Silverthorne’s attorney cited the Weeks case and requested that the materials be returned to them. The judge agreed.
The prosecution continued to try the case, which the Silverthorne's were sure was going to be dismissed on lack of evidence. The prosecution surprised the defense by producing photocopies of the original books. The Silverthorne's were convicted. Their appeal was heard by the US Supreme Court which stated that evidence derived from illegally seizures cannot be used in a court of law. This became known as Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine.
Deloree Mapp was suspected of harboring a fugitive who was wanted on charges related to a bombing. The police went to Mapp’s residence to search her place without a warrant. State and local police at this time did not think they needed warrants. She refused to let them in. The police forced their way in claiming they had a search warrant and proceeded to search the Mapp residence.
While searching for the fugitive, the police opened a drawer and found pornography that was considered to be illegal in Ohio at that time. Mapp was arrested and later found guilty for possession of pornography. Her case was appealed to the US Supreme Court, where her lawyer argued that the police had conducted an illegal search because they had no warrant. The lawyer also argued, that the police should have never have found the pornography because they were looking for a person.
The Court agreed. Subsequently, the court ruled that all police need to have search warrants (there are exceptions). Further the court founded the Elephant in a match box doctrine.
A plain clothes police officer was watching a particular place of business. The Officer staked out the place of business. He saw one man enter the store and look around as though he was casing the place. The man exited the store and met with another man.
The second man entered the place of business and also appeared to case the place. He exited the store and returned to the first man, and a discussion ensued. The Officer later reported that from his experience it appeared to him that these were the two men that were reportedly going to rob the place of business.
The Officer (in plain clothes) approached the two men from the front as they approached the store believed to be the target of the robbery. The Officer grabbed one man, later identified as Terry. The officer grabbed Terry by the arm and spun him toward an adjacent wall. Terry assumed the position and the Officer patted down Terry.
As the Officer patted down Terry he felt a hard large object in Terry’s pocket. The Officer believed it to be a gun and reached into Terry’s pocket and pulled out a gun. Terry and his would-be accomplice were arrested.
Terry later claimed that the search conducted by the Officer was illegal and using the Exclusionary Rule the arrest should be negated by the courts. The Supreme Court of the United States ruled that a frisk is not a search. When the Officer stopped Terry and spun him into the wall, the Officer was not merely following a hunch, but had an articulable suspicion that Terry and the man that was with him were going to conduct an armed robbery.
The Court further ruled that the Officer had indeed conducted a search when he entered Terry’s pocket, however, a warrant was not needed since the Officer had probable cause based upon his previous experience of feeling guns as the result of frisks.
Escubedo was arrested for murder of his brother-in-law without a warrant and interrogated in connection to a murder. He was released after questioning. Two weeks later another witness identified Escobedo as the murderer. Escobedo was told during the interrogation that it would be best if he confessed. Escubedo told the police he wanted to see an attorney. The police said that was not possible once the interrogation had begun. Soon Escubedo's lawyer arrived and announced that he wanted to see his client. The attorney was not permitted to see Escobedo, and when Escubedo asked to see his attorney he was told that his attorney did not want to see him. Escubedo admitted he had some knowledge of the murder and implicated himself in the murder. Escubedo was charged and subsequently convicted of murder.
In an appeal to the Supreme Court Escubedo claimed he was denied right to counsel. The court agreed.
In Miranda the courts ruled that the prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination.
Miranda was charged with kidnapping and rape of a young woman. He was brought in for questioning and identified as the assailant by the victim. He was subsequently questioned by police. After a two-hour interrogation Miranda signed a confession which formed the basis of his conviction.
The court ruled in favor of Miranda citing the following, "The entire aura and atmosphere of police interrogation without notification of rights and an offer of assistance of counsel tends to subjugate the individual to the will of the examiner."
The court continued, (the defendant) "...must be warned prior to any questioning that he has the right to remain silent, that anything he says can be used against him in a court of law, that he has the right to the presence of an attorney, and that if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed to him prior to any questioning if he so desires. Opportunity to exercise these rights must be afforded to him throughout the interrogation. After such warnings have been given, and such opportunity afforded him, the individual may knowingly waive these rights and agree to answer the questions or make a statement. But unless and until such warnings and waiver are demonstrated by the prosecution at the trial, no evidence obtained as a result of the interrogation can be used against him."
I. The most important aspects of the Miranda decision
II. Custody Requirement:
III Interrogation Requirement
IV. Miranda Warnings
V. Criticism of the Miranda Decision
Chimel was a suspect in a robbery of a coin shop. The police went to Chimel's home armed with an arrest warrant, but no search warrant. Chimel was not home when the police arrived and the police were let in by Chimel's wife. When Chimel arrived he was arrested. The police asked if they could look around and Chimel said no. The police proceeded with the search where they found some coins. At trial Chimel objected to the coins being admitted as evidence. He was convicted.
The U.S. Supreme Court found the following:
During an arrest the police may search the following:
The Defendant
The physical area within easy reach of the defendant
This has become known as the Lunge Rule
The Court also established reasons for a valid search without a search warrant during an arrest
To Protect the arresting officers
To prevent Evidence from being destroyed
To keep the defendant from escaping
A search is illegal when
When it goes beyond the defendant and the area within the defendant's immediate control
When it is conducted for other than as valid reason
When Warrants Are Not Required
To conduct a search is not always necessary for a police officer to have a warrant. The following are a few examples of when a search warrant is not required.
When any evidence is in Plain View so that any person may see the evidence, the Police Officer acting as would any other person seeing the evidence does not need a warrant to seize the evidence.
When a vehicle is impounded, the police are required to conduct a complete inventory of the vehicle and its contents. Any evidence implicating criminal behavior found during the inventory process is admissible in a court of law.
Emergency Searches may be conducted when the police believe that there is threat to life, escape of the subject, or destruction of evidence.
Searches that incidental to the arrest.
Authority to enter and/or search an "open field" without a warrant.
Naked-eye aerial observation of open areas and/or greenhouses.
Seizure of abandoned materials and refuse.