Fourth Amendment violations include unlawful seizures of persons, unlawful seizures of property, and unlawful searches. Under the “exclusionary rule,” evidence secured in violation of the Fourth Amendment is subject to exclusion (i.e., suppression) in both federal and state criminal proceedings. The exclusionary rule applies in a criminal trial, in a probation revocation hearing, and in a capital case penalty proceeding, but it does not apply in grand jury proceedings. 22 Fla. Prac., Criminal Procedure § 4:1 (2013).
Exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule
The "fruit" of illegal police conduct may be admitted if it would have been found anyway; there was an independent source for it; or the path from the illegality to the "fruit" is too attenuated. See, People v. Neely, 70 Cal. App. 4th 767 (3d Dist. 1999). 1 Criminal Practice Manual, 24-18 (2013).
Inevitable Discovery Doctrine
The "inevitable discovery" doctrine recognizes that illegally obtained evidence is admissible when the government is able to prove that an independent, ongoing investigation would have led law enforcement to the same evidence. See, Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (1984). Id.
Independent Source Doctrine
The "independent source doctrine" is where the evidence is obtainable through a source independent from the "poison tree," the "fruit" is not tainted and may be admitted. See, Segura v. U.S., 468 U.S. 796 (1984); Murray v. U.S., 487 U.S. 533 (1988). Id. at 24-19.
Path to Fruit is too Attenuated
The underlying purpose of the "attenuated connection" test is to mark "the point of diminishing returns of the deterrence principle." The Miranda warnings alone supply the requisite attenuation between an illegal arrest and a confession. See, Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 (1975); Jetmore v. State, 275 So.2d 61 (Fla. App. 1973). 6 Wayne R. LaFave et al., SEARCH AND SEIZURE A Treatise on the Fourth Amendment, 327-328, 376 (2012).
