Exclusionary Rule:
It was apparent that the materials introduced into evidence in the prosecution of defendant were seized during an illegal search of defendant's residence in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Nevertheless, the state supreme court affirmed defendant's conviction for possessing lewd material in violation of Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2905.34 on the basis that the Fourteenth Amendment did not apply in the state court prosecution of defendant for a state crime to forbid the admission of evidence obtained by an unreasonable search and seizure. On appeal, the Court reversed the state supreme court's decision. The Court held that the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment extended to the States the Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures. And, as necessary to ensure such rights, the exclusionary rule, which prohibited the introduction into evidence of material seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment, likewise applied to the State's prosecution of state crimes. Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961).
Additional Cases: Weeks v. United States, 232 US 383 (1914); Wong Sun v. United States, 371 US 471 (1963).
Exclusionary Rule Good Faith Exception:
This case presented the question whether the exclusionary rule should be modified so as to allow the use of evidence obtained by officers acting in reasonable reliance on a search warrant issued by a detached and neutral magistrate but ultimately found to be unsupported by probable cause. During trial, respondents filed motions to suppress evidence seized pursuant to a warrant and said motions were granted in part based on the conclusion that the warrant was not supported by probable cause despite the fact that the police officer was acting in good faith reliance on what he believed to be a valid warrant. The lower court affirmed and held that there was no good faith exception to the exclusionary rule. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed and held that the exclusionary rule should be modified so as not to bar the admission of evidence seized in reasonable, good-faith reliance on a search warrant that was subsequently held to be defective. The Court concluded that the marginal or nonexistent benefits produced by suppressing evidence obtained in objectively reasonable reliance on a subsequently invalidated search warrant could not justify the substantial costs of exclusion. United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984).
Independent Source Doctrine - evidence initially uncovered, but not seized, during an illegal search will not be suppressed if the police later obtain a search warrant which does not rely on any facts discovered during the illegal search, and then seize the evidence during a second search pursuant to the warrant. See, Murray v. United States, 487 U.S. 533 (1988). Chemerinsky and Levenson, Criminal Procedure Casenote Legal Briefs, 104 (2009).
Inevitable Discovery - Evidence obtained by the government as fruit of the poisonous tree is admissible at trial if the government proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the disputed evidence ultimately or inevitably would have been discovered by lawful means. See, Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (1984). Id. at 106.
Inadequate Casual Connection - Attenuation of the Taint - Where an illegal arrest leads to a search or confession that produces evidence, that evidence is inadmissible as "fruit of the poisonous tree" unless the casual connection between the illegal arrest and the discovery of the evidence is so attenuated as to dispute the taint. However, the mere recitation of Miranda warnings prior to confession does not dissipate the taint. See, Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 (1975). Id. at 108.
