Also known as: exclusionary rule of evidence · exclusionary rule · exclusionary rules
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A rule of evidence that bars the introduction at trial of evidence obtained through violations of constitutional rights. The rule applies in both federal and state criminal proceedings and operates to deter official misconduct by removing the incentive to conduct unlawful searches or seizures. Courts have recognized several exceptions that permit admission when the benefits of exclusion are outweighed by other considerations such as good-faith reliance or inevitable lawful discovery.
Eileen Epstein was stopped at a highway checkpoint where officers relied on a shared database showing an active warrant. The warrant had been recalled months earlier due to a clerical mistake in another county. Officers arrested her and searched her vehicle, discovering contraband. The court denied suppression because the officers' reliance on the apparently valid database entry was objectively reasonable.
Edgar Evers obtained a warrant that contained a typographical error in the address caused by the issuing judge's clerk. Officers executed the warrant in good faith and seized evidence of drug trafficking. Evers moved to suppress on the ground that the warrant was technically invalid. The court admitted the evidence because the officers reasonably relied on the warrant's facial validity.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Edith Eberhardt's computer was searched without a warrant during an investigation. Agents later obtained a valid warrant for the same records through routine audit procedures that would have been completed within days. The prosecution showed that the records would have been discovered lawfully regardless of the initial search. The court admitted the evidence under the inevitable-discovery doctrine.
Ella Emerson's home was searched pursuant to a warrant later found to lack probable cause. The officers had relied on the neutral magistrate's issuance of the warrant and had no reason to doubt its validity. Evidence of financial crimes was recovered. The court denied suppression because the officers acted in objectively reasonable good-faith reliance on the warrant.
Ewan Eckhart received use and derivative-use immunity and testified before a grand jury. The government later prosecuted him using evidence obtained independently of his testimony. Eckhart moved to dismiss on the ground that the prosecution could not prove an independent source. The court required the government to demonstrate that its evidence was not derived from the compelled testimony.
Eugene Ellsworth was arrested for drunk driving and taken to a hospital. Officers directed a physician to draw blood without a warrant or Ellsworth's consent. The blood-alcohol results were offered at trial. The court admitted the evidence because the draw was justified by exigent circumstances arising from the rapid dissipation of alcohol in the bloodstream.
Yes. The rule prohibits the use of evidence obtained through Fourth Amendment violations in state proceedings under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Supporting sources
The exception applies when officers reasonably rely on a warrant that is later found defective due to clerical errors or lack of probable cause, provided the reliance is objectively reasonable and the warrant is not facially deficient.
Supporting sources
Evidence is admissible if the prosecution proves that the police would have discovered it through lawful means even without the constitutional violation.
Supporting sources
No. The rule generally does not apply in civil removal hearings, so evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment may still be used.
Supporting sources
…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.…