Also known as: Weeks rule · exclusionary rule · federal exclusionary rule
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A constitutional doctrine requiring exclusion of evidence obtained through unreasonable searches and seizures from state criminal proceedings. The rule deters police misconduct by rendering such evidence inadmissible.
Willow Walker was charged in state court after officers searched her home without a warrant and found stolen goods. The evidence was obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The court suppressed the goods because the Weeks doctrine bars use of unconstitutionally seized evidence in state prosecutions.
Wanda Weaver's apartment was searched under a warrant containing a typographical error in the address made by the issuing judge. Officers relied on the warrant in good faith. The court admitted the seized drugs because the good-faith exception prevents exclusion when reliance on the defective warrant was objectively reasonable.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Wayne Walker hid a weapon in a field after an unlawful stop. Police later obtained a warrant and searched the same field pursuant to an independent investigation. The court admitted the weapon because the prosecution proved it would have been discovered lawfully even without the initial violation.
Wilma Wright's garage was searched under a warrant later found to lack probable cause. Officers had relied on the neutral magistrate's issuance in an objectively reasonable manner. The court refused to suppress the evidence because the good-faith exception applies when the warrant is not facially deficient.
Winter Wolfe refused to answer questions in a state proceeding that would incriminate her. The state sought to compel answers under threat of contempt. The court upheld her refusal because the Weeks doctrine incorporates the Fifth Amendment privilege against the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.
Willow West was interrogated in state custody without receiving warnings. Her statements were offered at trial. The court excluded them because the Weeks doctrine requires that the Fifth Amendment protections recognized in Miranda apply to state proceedings.
Yes. The doctrine requires that evidence obtained through Fourth Amendment violations be excluded from state criminal proceedings just as it is excluded from federal proceedings.
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 the police would have discovered it through lawful means even without the unconstitutional conduct.
Supporting sources
Yes. The doctrine extends the privilege to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, preventing states from compelling incriminating answers under threat of penalty.
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.…