The exclusionary rule protects the defendant’s Constitutional rights. Under the exclusionary rule, evidence obtained unlawfully cannot be used in a trial. This applies to evidence gathering that violates the following laws:
- Illegal search or seizures (4th Amendment)
- Self-incrimination (5th Amendment)
- Violating a defendant’s right to legal counsel (6th Amendment)
The exclusionary rule only applies to criminal cases, not civil lawsuits or deportation hearings.
The Exclusionary Rule and “Fruit of the Poisoned Tree”
Fruit of the poisoned tree is evidence that is discovered because of the evidence that cannot be seen because of the exclusionary rule. This is not a constitutional right but a court practice to deter law enforcement officers from violating the constitutional rights of suspects. To be considered the fruit of the poisoned tree, the evidence must have been uncovered as a direct result of the illegally obtained evidence. For example, evidence was discovered because the defendant told law enforcement the location during an illegally obtained confession.
Exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule
The court provides a number of exceptions to the exclusionary rule where the law enforcement officers did not knowingly act in an illegal capacity. We will discuss each of the exceptions to the exclusionary rule below.
Good Faith Exception
The good-faith exception provides an exception for evidence gathered illegally by police acting in good faith. The law enforcement officers must have had a reasonable belief for thinking they were acting legally, and any reasonable person would have believed it too in their place. An example of this is if law enforcement officers were carrying out an incorrect search warrant. To apply this exception, the court will consider the circumstances and reasoning of police officers to determine whether they will apply the exclusionary rule or not.
Independent Source Exception
Another exception to the exclusionary rule is the independent source exception which is used to remedy the initial unlawful evidence. The illegally obtained evidence may be admitted to court if later an independent source helps uncover the evidence. This does away with the argument that the evidence would never have been found if not for the violation of the defendant’s rights. This exception ensures the police are in the same position they were in before finding the evidence, not worse because they can never use that evidence even if they find it later.
The independent source cannot be connected to the initial illegally obtained evidence. For example, the police can not use the knowledge of the illegally obtained evidence to pressure a confession or follow leads they would not have if not for the evidence. The police also cannot use the knowledge of the evidence’s existence to seek a warrant if they do not have enough evidence to obtain one without that knowledge.
Inevitable Discovery Exception
Another common exception to the exclusionary rule is if the evidence would have been inevitably discovered. The court will examine the evidence of both sides and their arguments as to whether this is the case. It will then make a decision as to whether the inevitable discovery exception is valid or if the exclusionary rule applies.
Attenuation Exception
The prosecutor may argue that the exclusionary rule does not apply if the link between the evidence and the misconduct of law enforcement is weak. Both legal teams will present their evidence and argument for the court’s consideration.
When Does the Exclusionary Rule Not Apply?
There are two circumstances where the exclusionary rule does not apply: discrediting the defendant’s testimony and qualified immunity.
While the exclusionary rule prevents illegally obtained evidence from being used to prove criminal charges, the prosecutor can use it to discredit the defendant’s testimony. It can be used to bring perjury charges against the defendant but cannot be used to prove the defendant’s guilt.
The exclusionary rule does not weaken the qualified immunity of law enforcement officers; therefore, it can be difficult for a defendant to file a civil lawsuit for the violation of rights. Qualified immunity protects law enforcement officers from civil lawsuits while carrying out their official duties in a manner that they reasonably believe is legal. The law will consider if any reasonable law enforcement officer would believe that their conduct was legal. If they wouldn’t, only then is qualified immunity not applicable, and the defendant can file a civil lawsuit. The exclusionary rule is important in that it is one of the few protections defendants have from the misconduct of law enforcement officers.