Also known as: 4th Amendment exclusionary rule · exclusionary rule
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A judicially created remedy that bars the introduction of evidence obtained through searches or seizures violating the Fourth Amendment. The rule deters police misconduct by excluding the fruits of unconstitutional conduct from criminal trials. It applies in both federal and state proceedings.
Dollree Mapp's home was forcibly entered and searched by Cleveland police without a valid warrant. Officers discovered obscene materials during the illegal search. The Supreme Court suppressed the evidence in her state prosecution because the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.
Francesca Fiore's home was searched under a warrant containing a typographical error in the street address caused by the issuing judge's clerk. Officers had no reason to doubt the warrant's facial validity. They seized documents during the search. The court admitted the evidence under the good-faith exception because the officers' reliance was objectively reasonable.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Faye Fuller was arrested without probable cause and her office files were seized. Prosecutors later showed that routine regulatory audits would have uncovered the same files within days. The court admitted the records because the prosecution proved the evidence would have been discovered through lawful means regardless of the initial violation.
Francois Fortier was searched pursuant to a warrant later found to lack probable cause. Officers had relied on the neutral magistrate's issuance and the warrant was not facially deficient. They recovered contraband during the search. The court denied suppression because the officers' reliance was objectively reasonable.
Francesca Fowler was arrested without probable cause and made a statement that led officers to a witness. The witness then identified additional evidence. The court suppressed both the statement and the derivative evidence because they were obtained by exploitation of the initial illegality.
Francisco Frost was arrested for driving under the influence. Officers directed a physician to draw his blood without a warrant while he was hospitalized. The court admitted the blood test results because the procedure was reasonable under the circumstances and did not require suppression.
No. Courts apply the rule only when the benefits of deterring police misconduct outweigh the social costs of suppressing reliable evidence. The analysis focuses on the culpability of the officers and the likelihood that exclusion will deter similar conduct.
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 shows that police would have discovered it through lawful means even without the unconstitutional conduct.
Supporting sources
Yes. The fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine requires suppression of evidence obtained by exploitation of the initial illegality unless the taint is sufficiently attenuated.
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.…