Also known as: exclusionary rules
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A rule that excludes or suppresses evidence obtained in violation of an accused person's constitutional rights. The rule applies in both federal and state criminal proceedings and serves to deter police misconduct by rendering inadmissible any evidence secured through unconstitutional searches or seizures.
Ella Emerson faces state drug charges after officers search her apartment without a warrant and seize narcotics. The trial court excludes the drugs because the search violated the Fourth Amendment. The prosecution cannot introduce the evidence at trial.
Evelyn Ellison is arrested after officers rely on a database entry showing an active warrant that had actually been recalled due to a clerical mistake in another county. Officers had no notice of the error and conduct a search incident to arrest that yields contraband. The court admits the evidence under the good-faith exception.
Eva Espinosa is questioned without Miranda warnings and leads officers to a hidden cache of stolen goods. Prosecutors prove that routine inventory procedures at the station would have uncovered the same items hours later through lawful means. The court admits the evidence despite the initial violation.
Elise Everly's home is searched pursuant to a warrant later found to lack probable cause. Officers relied on the warrant in good faith after review by a neutral magistrate and had no reason to doubt its validity. The court denies the suppression motion and admits the seized documents.
Ewan Eckhart challenges the admission of evidence in state court that was obtained through an unreasonable search by state officers. The court applies the exclusionary rule because the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Fourth Amendment protections against the states. The evidence is suppressed.
Esme Ellington sues federal agents after they conduct a warrantless search of her apartment and seize personal papers. Because the exclusionary rule applies only in criminal prosecutions, she pursues a damages remedy rather than suppression. The court recognizes the availability of a civil cause of action for the constitutional violation.
On the morning of November 26, 1965, agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics entered Webster Bivens's apartment in the Bronx. The agents broke open the door, handcuffed Bivens in front of his wife and young children, and thoroughly searched the apartment. They then transported Bivens to the federal courthouse in Brooklyn, where he was interrogated, booked, and subjected to a visual strip search. Several days later Bivens was released on his own recognizance, and he was never indicted or prosecuted for any offense. Bivens filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York against the six agents in their individual capacities. His complaint sought fifteen thousand dollars in damages from each agent and alleged that the arrest and search were effected without a warrant, that unreasonable force was employed, and that the arrest was made without probable cause. Bivens claimed to have suffered great humiliation, embarrassment, and mental suffering as a result of the agents' conduct. The District Court dismissed the complaint on the ground that it failed to state a cause of action. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal. The Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari to review the judgment.
View caseYes. The rule prohibits the use in state court of evidence obtained through unconstitutional searches or seizures, just as it does in federal court.
The exception applies when officers reasonably rely on a warrant that is later found invalid due to clerical errors or lack of probable cause, provided the reliance is objectively reasonable and the warrant was issued by a neutral magistrate.
Evidence remains admissible if the prosecution shows that police would have discovered it through lawful means even without the constitutional violation.
No. Evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment may still be used in civil removal hearings.
…recently fixed as Department of Justice policy. See Beaney, Right to Counsel 29-30, 36-42 (1955). In Mapp , which imposed the exclusionary rule on the States for Fourth Amendment violations, more than half of the States had themselves already adopted some such rule. See 367 U. S., at 651. In Gideon , which extended Johnson v.…