Illegally obtained Evidence USA

The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides that "[t]he right of the people to be secure in
their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and
particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

The ultimate goal of this provision is to protect people’s right to privacy and freedom from unreasonable
intrusions by the government. However, the Fourth Amendment does not guarantee protection from all
searches and seizures, but only those done by the government and deemed unreasonable under the
law.

To claim violation of Fourth Amendment as the basis for suppressing a relevant evidence, the court had
long required that the claimant must prove that he himself was the victim of an invasion of privacy to
have a valid standing to claim protection under the Fourth Amendment. However, the Supreme Court
has departed from such requirement, issue of exclusion is to be determined solely upon a resolution of
the substantive question whether the claimant's Fourth Amendment rights have been violated, which in
turn requires that the claimant demonstrates a justifiable expectation of privacy, which was arbitrarily
violated by the government.

In general, most warrantless searches of private premises are prohibited under the Fourth Amendment,
unless specific exception applies. For instance, a warrantless search may be lawful, if an officer has
asked and is given consent to search; if the search is incident to a lawful arrest; if there is probable cause
to search and there is exigent circumstance calling for the warrantless search. Exigent circumstances
exist in situations where a situation where people are in imminent danger, where evidence faces
imminent destruction, or prior to a suspect's imminent escape.

On the other hand, warrantless search and seizure of properties are not illegal, if the objects being
searched are in plain view. Further, warrantless seizure of abandoned property, or of properties on an
open field do not violate Fourth Amendment, because it is considered that having expectation of privacy
right to an abandoned property or to properties on an open field is not reasonable.

However, in some states, there are some exception to this limitation, where some state authorities have
granted protection to open fields. States can always establish higher standards for searches and
seizures protection than what is required by the Fourth Amendment, but states cannot allow conducts
that violate the Fourth Amendment.
However, the protection under the Fourth Amendment can be waived if one voluntarily consents to or
does not object to evidence collected during a warrantless search or seizure.

WARRANT REQUIREMENT

A search or seizure is generally unreasonable and illegal without a warrant, subject to only a few
exceptions.

To obtain a search warrant or arrest warrant, the law enforcement officer must demonstrate probable
cause that a search or seizure is justified. A court-authority, usually a magistrate, will consider the
totality of circumstances to determine whether to issue the warrant.

The warrant requirement may be excused in exigent circumstances if an officer has probable cause and
obtaining a warrant is impractical in the particular situation. For instance, in State v. Helmbright, 990
N.E.2d 154, Ohio court held that a warrantless search of probationer's person or his place of residence is
not violation of the Fourth Amendment, if the officer who conducts the search possesses “reasonable
grounds” to believe that the probationer has failed to comply with the terms of his probation.

Other well-established exceptions to the warrant requirement include consensual searches, certain brief
investigatory stops, searches incident to a valid arrest, and seizures of items in plain view.

Exigent Circumstances

Definition

Exigent circumstances - "circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to believe that entry (or
other relevant prompt action) was necessary to prevent physical harm to the officers or other persons,
the destruction of relevant evidence, the escape of the suspect, or some other consequence improperly
frustrating legitimate law enforcement efforts."

Overview

Exigent circumstances are exceptions to the general requirement of a warrant under the Fourth
Amendment searches and seizures.
In Missouri v. McNeely (2013), the Supreme Court clarified, "A variety of circumstances may give rise to
an exigency sufficient to justify a warrantless search, including law enforcement's need to provide
emergency assistance to an occupant of a home . . . engage in “hot pursuit” of a fleeing suspect . . . or
enter a burning building to put out a fire and investigate its cause."

Courts will typically look at the time when the officer makes the warrantless search or seizure to
evaluate whether at that point in time a reasonable officer at the scene would believe it is urgent to act
and impractical to secure a warrant. Courts may also consider whether the facts suggested that the
suspect was armed and planning to escape, whether a reasonable police officer would believe his safety
or others’ safety was threatened, and whether there was a serious crime involved.

Exigent circumstances may also occur when the police is in hot pursuit of a suspect who is possibly
involved in criminal activities and in the process of fleeing.

Commentary 1

The Law: Illegally Obtained Evidence

Introduction

There are additional categories of evidence that fall under the purview of evidence law pertaining to
how evidence is obtained and what impact it has on the lawsuit in which it is introduced. These other
sorts of proof will be examined briefly in this article

How Did You Get That?

On occasion, there is evidence that can greatly assist or seriously harm a given side in legal
proceedings--evidence that is quite relevant to the matter at hand. However, this evidence, no matter
how relevant, is sometimes deemed inadmissible. The reason for this type of ruling hinges on this fact:
the manner in which evidence is obtained is every bit as important as the content and relevance of that
evidence. This section addresses the topic of evidence that is illegally obtained (and therefore
inadmissible in court).
Illegally obtained evidence applies to criminal cases only and is typically "evidence acquired by violating
a person's constitutional protection against illegal searches and seizures; evidence obtained without a
warrant or probable cause" (Blackwell, 2004). This ties in with the legal principle known as the
exclusionary rule, which states "evidence collected or analyzed in violation of the U.S. Constitution is
inadmissible for a criminal prosecution in a court of law (that is, it cannot be used in a criminal trial)".
This provision was developed to provide maximum protection of an individual's rights and civil liberties
and to ensure that law enforcement procedures are conducted properly.

The exclusionary rule was established at the federal level in 1914 by the United States Supreme Court in
the case Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383. Until that time, the common law provided that any
relevant evidence, no matter how it was obtained, could be entered into criminal proceedings as proof.
Simply put, this rule disallowed the use of any evidence that was obtained by illegal means. A further
case, Mapp v. Ohio 367 U. S. 643, in 1961, made the rule applicable and binding to the states. Other
cases pertaining to this rule include Wolf v. Colorado (1949), United States v. Leon (1984), and
Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole v. Scott (1998). It currently applies to all citizens and
resident aliens within the United States.

The primary function of the exclusionary rule is to deter law enforcement officials and others from
gaining evidence in an unlawful manner (i.e., as prohibited in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the
United States Bill of Rights). These amendments protect citizens from unreasonable searches and
seizures and compelled self-incrimination, respectively. This rule does not apply, though, to civil cases,
nor to cases involving aliens that reside outside the United States (see United States v. Alvarez).

Exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule

As with all rules, there are exceptions, and the exclusionary rule is no different. Several notable caveats
and provisos apply.

1. First, even when the rule applies, it only excludes illegally obtained evidence for the purpose of
proving the defendant's guilt for the particular crime. Such proof can still be used to impeach
the credibility of the defendant's trial testimony. However, if the defendant doesn't testify, this
loophole cannot be used.
2. Another exception is the inevitable discovery doctrine, established in the Nix v. Williams case of
1984, which "holds that evidence obtained through an unlawful search or seizure is admissible
in court if it can be established, to a very high degree of probability, that normal police
investigation would have inevitably led to the discovery of the evidence". In the case People v.
Stith, the court ruled that such evidence could be admitted under this doctrine, but only as
secondary evidence. Primary evidence, or "the best and most important evidence in a case"
(Blackwell, 2004), was still bound by the conditions of the exclusionary rule.
 3. Third, the attenuation exception is that "evidence may be suppressed only if there is a clear
causal connection between the illegal police action and the evidence". In other words, unless it
can be proven that the evidence resulted directly from some illegal action taken by law
enforcement officials, it can be admitted. In People v. Martinez, a three-part test was
established for this exception: "(1) the time period between the illegal arrest and the ensuing
confession or consensual search; (2) the presence of intervening factors or event; and (3) the
purpose and flagrancy of the official misconduct".
4. A fourth is the independent source exception, which allows evidence into proceedings if it came
from a knowledgeable and independent source. In this sense, an independent source must be
someone utterly unconnected to the illegality of the arrest, search, and/or seizure (People v.
Arnau).
5. Finally, there is good faith exception, which permits the admission of some illegally obtained
evidence if it is the result of a minor or technical error. For example, if "a magistrate is
erroneous in granting a police officer a warrant, and the officer acts on the warrant in good
faith, then the evidence resulting in the execution of the warrant is not suppressible". The good
faith exception does not apply in all such situations, however. Specifically, "(1) no reasonable
officer would have relied on the affidavit underlying the warrant. (2) the warrant is defective on
its face for failing to state the place to be searched or things to be seized. (3) the warrant was
obtained by fraud on the part of a government official. (4) The magistrate has "wholly
abandoned his judicial role'".

Commentary 2

THE HISTORY OF THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE

The 1914 case of Weeks v. United States was a landmark case that laid down the basis for the
exclusionary rule. The case involves Fremont Weeks, who was believed to have transported lottery
tickets through the mail in violation of the Criminal Code. In response, law enforcement arrested Weeks
and searched his office. Based on this evidence, Weeks was convicted. During a subsequent appeal,
Weeks argued that the court had violated his Fourth Amendment right to be protected from illegal
searches and seizures. In its subsequent decision, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the
search and seizure of Weeks’ home violated his Fourth Amendment rights. In its majority opinion, the
court held that the illegally seized evidence constituted “fruit from the poisonous tree.”

In 1949, the Supreme Court held another landmark exclusionary rule case: Wolf v. United States. The
petitioner in this case, was convicted by a state court of conspiring to commit illegal abortions. The
petitioner appealed and argued that his Fourth Amendment constitutional right to be free from illegal
searches and seizures was violated and that any evidence used against him violated the Fourth
Amendment. The Supreme Court of the United States subsequently held that due process is not denied
when evidence obtained through an illegal search and seizure is admitted by a state court for a state
offense.
As a result of Weeks and Wolf, forms of the exclusionary rule existed in several states for many decades.
In 1961, however, the rule was extended throughout the country and gained popularity among criminal
defendants as a potential defense.

That is because in 1961, the United States Supreme Court heard the case of Mapp v. Ohio. This case
arose from the decision of Ohio law enforcement to enter Mapp’s home without her approval. Instead,
law enforcement was acting on a tip that a bomb was located inside of Mapp’s residence. While law
enforcement did not find a bomb, pornographic material that had been left by a prior tenant was seized.
Consequently, Mapp was arrested because possession of pornography was a crime in Ohio then.
Following a conviction, Mapp argued on appeal that the warrant was fake and that law enforcement’s
decision to enter the home without justification violated Mapp’s constitutional right. The Supreme Court
ruled in favor of Mapp.

EXCEPTIONS TO THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE

1. Inevitable discovery rule: This includes evidence that would have been inevitably discovered
through lawful means. It is similar to the independent source doctrine.
2. Independent source doctrine: This applies to evidence initially discovered during, or as a
consequence of, an illegal search, but that same evidence was later obtained independently
from activities untainted by the initial illegality. This is because if the illegal activity by police had
not occurred, the evidence would still be admitted into court.
3. Knock and announce: This rule states that when an officer is executing a search warrant, he or
she generally must not forcefully enter a residence, but instead first knock, identify him or
herself and the intent, and wait a reasonable amount of time for the resident to answer. The
exclusionary rule may apply to some violations of the rule, but not all and therefore the
applicability is determined on a case by case basis.
4. Attenuation principal: Evidence may be permitted if the connection between the evidence and
the illegal means by which it was obtained is remote and attenuated.
5. Good faith exception: This applies to officers who had a reasonable, good-faith belief that they
were acting according to legal authority, such as by relying on a search warrant that is later
found to have been legally defective. This exception does not apply if:
 No reasonable officer would rely on the affidavit underlying the warrant;
 The warrant is defective on its face;
 The warrant was obtained by fraud;
 The magistrate judge “wholly abandoned his judicial role;” or
 The warrant was improperly executed
 Isolated police negligence: This will not necessarily trigger the exclusionary rule. To trigger this
rule, police conduct must be deliberate, reckless, or grossly negligent conduct.
 6. In court identification: A witness may make an in-court identification despite the existence of
prior illegality. This is because the information stems from the witness and not just the illegal
gathering of evidence.

Commentary 3

Exceptions

1. Good Faith Exception

Under the good-faith exception, evidence is not excluded if it is obtained by officers who reasonably rely
on a search warrant that turns out to be invalid. See Arizona v. Evans. Also, in Davis v. U.S., the U.S.
Supreme Court ruled that the exclusionary rule does not apply when the police conduct a search in
reliance on binding appellate precedent allowing the search. Under Illinois v. Krull, evidence may be
admissible if the officers rely on a statute that is later invalidated. In Herring v. U.S., the Court found
that the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies when police employees erred in
maintaining records in a warrant database.

2. Independent Source Doctrine

Evidence initially obtained during an unlawful search or seizure may later be admissible if the evidence is
later obtained through a constitutionally valid search or seizure. Murray v. U.S. is the modern
interpretation of the independent source doctrine, originally adopted in Nix v. Williams. Additionally,
some courts recognize an "expanded" doctrine, in which a partially tainted warrant is upheld if, after
excluding the tainted information that lead to its issuance, the remaining untainted information
establishes probable cause sufficient to justify its issuance. See, for example, the South Dakota Supreme
Court decision in State v. Boll.

3. Inevitable Discovery Doctrine

Related to the independent source doctrine, above, and also adopted in Nix v. Williams, the inevitable
discovery doctrine allows admission of evidence that was discovered in an unlawful search or seizure if it
would have be discovered in the same condition anyway, by an independent line of investigation that
was already being pursued when the unlawful search or seizure occurred.

4. Attenuation Doctrine
In cases where the relationship between the evidence challenged and the unconstitutional conduct is
too remote and attenuated, the evidence may be admissible. See Utah v. Strieff. Brown v. Illinois, cited
in Strieff, articulated three factors for the courts to consider when determining attenuation: temporal
proximity, the presence of intervening circumstances, and the purpose and flagrancy of the official
misconduct.

5. Evidence Admissible for Impeachment

The exclusionary rule does not prevent the government from introducing illegally gathered evidence to
“impeach,” or attack the credibility of, defendants’ testimony at trial. The Supreme Court recognized this
exception in Harris v. New York as a truth-testing device to prevent perjury. Even when the government
suspects perjury, however, it may only use tainted evidence for impeachment, and may not use it to
show guilt.

6. Qualified Immunity

Due to qualified immunity, the exclusionary rule is often a defendant's only remedy when police officers
conduct an unreasonable search or violate their Miranda rights. Even if officers violate a defendant's
constitutional or statutory rights, qualified immunity protects the officers from a lawsuit unless no
reasonable officer would believe that the officers' conduct was legal.
Carpenter v. United States

Facts of the case

In April 2011, police arrested four men in connection with a series of armed robberies. One of the men
confessed to the crimes and gave the FBI his cell phone number and the numbers of the other
participants. The FBI used this information to apply for three orders from magistrate judges to obtain
"transactional records" for each of the phone numbers, which the judges granted under the Stored
Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. 2703(d). That Act provides that the government may require the
disclosure of certain telecommunications records when "specific and articulable facts show[] that there
are reasonable grounds to believe that the contents of a wire or electronic communication, or the
records or other information sought, are relevant and material to an ongoing criminal investigation."
The transactional records obtained by the government include the date and time of calls, and the
approximate location where calls began and ended based on their connections to cell towers—"cell site"
location information (CSLI).

Based on the cell-site evidence, the government charged Timothy Carpenter with, among other
offenses, aiding and abetting robbery that affected interstate commerce, in violation of the Hobbs Act,
18 U.S.C. 1951. Carpenter moved to suppress the government's cell-site evidence on Fourth
Amendment grounds, arguing that the FBI needed a warrant based on probable cause to obtain the
records. The district court denied the motion to suppress, and the Sixth Circuit affirmed.

Question

Does the warrantless search and seizure of cell phone records, which include the location and
movements of cell phone users, violate the Fourth Amendment?

Conclusion

The government's warrantless acquisition of Carpenter's cell-site records violated his Fourth
Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures. Chief Justice John Roberts authored the
opinion for the 5-4 majority. The majority first acknowledged that the Fourth Amendment protects not
only property interests, but also reasonable expectations of privacy. Expectations of privacy in this age
of digital data do not fit neatly into existing precedents, but tracking person's movements and location
through extensive cell-site records is far more intrusive than the precedents might have anticipated. The
Court declined to extend the "third-party doctrine"—a doctrine where information disclosed to a third
party carries no reasonable expectation of privacy—to cell-site location information, which implicates
even greater privacy concerns than GPS tracking does. One consideration in the development of the
third-party doctrine was the "nature of the particular documents sought," and the level of intrusiveness
of extensive cell-site data weighs against application of the doctrine to this type of information.
Additionally, the third-party doctrine applies to voluntary exposure, and while a user might be abstractly
aware that his cell phone provider keeps logs, it happens without any affirmative act on the user's part.
Thus, the Court held narrowly that the government generally will need a warrant to access cell-site
location information.

“We hold only that a warrant is required in the rare case where the suspect has a legitimate privacy
interest in records held by a third party,” the chief justice wrote.

The decision made exceptions for emergencies like bomb threats and child abductions. “Such
exigencies,” he wrote, “include the need to pursue a fleeing suspect, protect individuals who are
threatened with imminent harm or prevent the imminent destruction of evidence.”