Exclusionary Rule Exceptions and the Fourth Amendment

Under the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution, law enforcement officers cannot conduct an unreasonable search or seizure of property. Through various Supreme Court cases, what that language has come to mean is that the Fourth Amendment protects you against a warrantless search and seizure unless the police have probable cause to conduct the search. If there is no probable cause, then any evidence seized must be excluded in a subsequent case against you. In some circumstances, warrants that authorize a search may ultimately turn out to be invalid due to an issue with the evidence presented to obtain the warrant, in which case you may also prevent the prosecution’s use of any evidence seized under the invalid warrant against you.

The rule around the Fourth Amendment that prevents evidence from being used when it is obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment is known as the “exclusionary rule.” While it provides protections to individuals facing allegations of criminal offenses, there are also exceptions to the exclusionary rule that you should understand.

What is the Exclusionary Rule? 

As we noted above, the exclusionary rule prohibits the government (i.e., the prosecution, whether a local, state, or federal law enforcement in Indiana) from using most evidence that is obtained through a violation of the Fourth Amendment. In short, the exclusionary rule says that evidence obtained through a warrantless search without probable cause, or evidence obtained through a search with an invalid warrant, cannot be used against a defendant. The rule came out of the US Supreme Court case Mapp v. Ohio (1961).

The exclusionary rule also prevents evidence known as “fruit of the poisonous tree” from being used. What is “fruit of the poisonous tree”? In general, it is evidence discovered as a result of the original unlawful search and seizure. Accordingly, it is secondarily excluded evidence.

Common Exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule 

There are exceptions to the exclusionary rule that can preserve the evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment for use by the prosecutor. The following are the primary exceptions that exist, which can result in evidence being used against you, even when it was obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment:

• Good faith exception (police relied on a search warrant they believed to be valid even if it was later determined to be invalid);
• Independent source exception (evidence is later obtained lawfully); and
• Inevitable discovery (the evidence would have been discovered even if there was no Fourth Amendment violation).

Some unlawfully obtained evidence can also be used when it is being used to impeach a defendant’s testimony.

You may ask why the law would ever allow illegally seized evidence to be used in Court.  The reason is because the purpose of the exclusionary rule is to discourage unlawful police behavior and not to let otherwise guilty people avoid conviction.

Contact a Criminal Defense Attorney in Indianapolis Today for Assistance

 If you were subjected to a search during a traffic stop or after having law enforcement officers come to your residence or workplace, it is critical to talk with a lawyer to determine whether the search may have been in violation of the Fourth Amendment. If so, it is possible that any evidence seized during the search must be excluded from the case being made against you, and you may be able to have charges dropped if you have been charged with a criminal offense. Do not hesitate to get in touch with an experienced Indianapolis criminal defense lawyer at Rigney Law LLC if you need assistance determining the best defense strategy to pursue in your case.

Source:

supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/367/643/