Chapter 10 notes

Chapter 10 ? Remedies for Constitutional Violations I: the Exclusionary Rule and Entrapment Remedies against Officer Misconduct There are 2 types of remedies aimed at officer misconduct: The Exclusionary Rule and the defense of Entrapment affecting the outcomes of the state?s criminal case against defendants There are 3 types of remedies that may be sought in separate proceedings: Criminal prosecution of officers, civil lawsuits to sue [officers, departments, and/or municipalities], and administrative review of police misconduct Remedies aren?t mutually exclusive Citizens have no constitutional right to the exclusionary rule or the defense of entrapment The Exclusionary Rule The US has the only CJS in the world in which courts throw out ?good evidence? because the government used ?bad methods? to get it ?Good evidence? means evidence that can help prove the defendants guilt ?Bad methods? means conduct that violates: 4th Amendment ban on unreasonable search and seizures, 5th Amendment right against self incrimination, 6th Amendment right to counsel, and 5th and 14th Amendment rights to due process of the law Throughout history, there?s no mention of the Exclusionary Rule in the Constitution; but James Madison believed it was implied in judicial power In 1914, Weeks v. US led the USSC in creating the Exclusionary Rule It applied to only federal courts and covered only private papers and belongings Justifications to the Exclusionary Rule: Constitutional Right- The 4th, 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendment rights wouldn?t mean anything without the exclusion Judicial Integrity- The courts shouldn?t participate in unconstitutional behavior by approving it Deterrence- prevent unconstitutional conduct by government officers Scope: The scope of the rule is restricted because of the belief that the social costs of freeing guilty people and of undermining the prosecution?s case are too high and keep good evidence out of court The rule is restricted to the governments case-in-chief at trial The court created 5 main exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule: Collateral Use- Illegally obtained evidence is admissible in all nontribal settings Cross-Examination- The prosecution can use illegally obtained evidence to undermine defense witnesses? credibility Fruit of the Poisonous Tree- The government shouldn?t be in a worse position after illegal conduct; it consists of the remaining 3 exceptions: Attenuation- Tainted evidence is admissible if the totality of circumstances in the case proves that the poisonous connection between police illegality and the evidence has weakened enough Independent Source- Tainted evidence is admissible if after violating the Constitution, officers get the same evidence in a totally separate lawful action Inevitable Discovery- Tainted evidence is admissible if police law-breaking produced the evidence but the evidence would?ve been discovered eventually anyway Persons seized illegally (arrested) Persons arrested illegally aren?t fruit of the poisonous tree, so they can be produced, tried, and convicted in court Courts don?t ask how individuals got to court, that?s the polices matter Reasonable, Good-Faith exception Applies only to the evidence obtained by search warrants that later turn out to be illegal Evidence obtained during execution of illegal search warrant is admissible only if the government can prove that officers honestly relied on the legality of the warrants and if it was reasonable for officers to believe the warrants were legal Non-law enforcement government officials: Prevention of government unconstitutional behavior is the only justification for the exclusionary rule The rule applies to the police because they?re deterred by exclusion The rule doesn?t apply to judges and other court personnel because there si no evidence exclusion would deter their misconduct The Defense of Entrapment Criminal cases are dismissed if the government pressured defendants to commit crimes they wouldn?t have committed without pressure Encouragement is not entrapment There are 2 tests that determine the line between entrapment and encouragement: The Subjective Test focuses on the defendants predisposition to commit the crime The Objective Test focuses on the behavior of law enforcement