Exclusionary Rule: The Beginning

In the first article in the series, I introduced the topic of Admissibility, or more importantly the ability to have evidence ruled inadmissible which is very important to a defendant in a criminal court case.  Likewise it is very important to the state that all evidence collected to be used in a criminal trial be untainted.  As stated in a previous article, lack of evidence usually means the district attorney will be unwilling to pursue criminal charges against a defendant.  Therefore, whenever possible, counsel for the defendant will attempt to have evidence against their client ruled inadmissible.  To do so, the defense lawyer will rely on two landmark United States Supreme Court rulings as a starting point.

The first one Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 (1914).  In Weeks the United States Supreme Court by unanimous decision ruled that the warrantless seizure of items from a private residence violates an individual’s Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures by federal officers and evidence against said defendant cannot be used against him/her in federal prosecutions.  The second case is Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961).  In Mapp, the Court extended the protections granted in the Weeks ruling to defendants in state and lower courts.

In essence these two cases require the presiding judge to exam how the evidence was acquired.  To do so, the question of whether or not a warrant was issued for the collection of the evidence must.  If one was issued, was the search for and subsequent collection of evidence within the boundaries of the warrant?  If not, then an attorney should be successful having the court rule the evidence as inadmissible.

Upon challenge from defense counsel, the judge must rule whether or not the evidence to be presented was lawfully obtained.  Absent certain exceptions to the exclusionary rule, evidence collected by a law enforcement officer without a valid warrant cannot be presented against a defendant in a criminal trial.

In addition, the defense lawyer will seek to have the evidence thrown out if a police officer or prosecutor obtained the evidence as a result of a confession gained in violation of the a defendants right against self incrimination as outlined in the fifth amendment.  Also, any evidence obtained from a confession made absent a defense lawyer if a defendant has requested advice of counsel, but denied access to one during questioning.

Another tactic used by defense counsel is to show that the evidence to be used by the prosecutor was collected in violation of the fourth, fifth or sixth amendments.  If the evidence collected in that case tainted, then it is always tainted and cannot be used to prosecute a different.

The other method defense attorneys employ to have evidence excluded from trial is to show that the manor in which the evidence was demonstrates a violation of the due process clause.

Next time we will start looking at exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule.