User:Llagerfe/sandbox

Scope
The exclusionary rule does not apply in a civil case, in a grand jury proceeding, or in a parole revocation hearing.

The law in force at the time of the police action, not the time of the attempt to introduce the evidence, controls whether the action is illegal for exclusionary rule purposes.

Evidence Obtained Indirectly from Illegal Activity
Under the “fruit of the poison tree” doctrine, evidence obtained as an indirect result of illegal state action is also inadmissible. For example, if a defendant is arrested illegally, the government may not use fingerprints taken while the defendant was in custody as evidence. Because police would not have obtained the fingerprints without the illegal arrest, the prints are “fruit of the poison tree.”

Other examples of inadmissible fruit of the poison tree include:


 * Evidence seized during a search, where the probable cause for the search was illegally obtained evidence
 * A confession made by the defendant, prompted by the admission of illegally obtained evidence against him
 * Evidence derived from information gained in illegal wiretaps

However, the "fruit of the poison tree" doctrine does not apply to violations of Miranda rights. Although a confession obtained in violation of Miranda is inadmissible, evidence obtained based on information in the confession is admissible. For example, if police learn the identity of a witness through a confession that violates Miranda, the government may still use the witness's testimony at at trial.

Limitations
The exclusionary rule does not bar the introduction of all evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth, Fifth, or Sixth Amendment. In Hudson v. Michigan, Justice Scalia wrote for the U.S. Supreme Court: [big block quote]

Limitations on the exclusionary rule have included the following:


 * Private search doctrine: Evidence unlawfully obtained from the defendant by a private person is admissible. The exclusionary rule is designed to protect privacy rights, with the Fourth Amendment applying specifically to government officials.
 * Standing requirement: Evidence can only be suppressed if the illegal search violated the person's own (the person making the court motion) constitutional rights. The exclusionary rule does not apply to privacy rights of a third party. However, there is a narrow exception to this standing requirement, the jus tertii standing exception.
 * Cross-examination: Illegally obtained evidence may be admissible to attack the defendant’s credibility on cross-examination, at least where necessary to prevent gamesmanship. For example, where the defendant affirmatively chooses to make a broad statement denying any narcotics activity, he may not use the exclusionary rule as a shield against attacks on his credibility. However, the government also may not attempt to “smuggle in” excluded evidence on cross-examination by asking broad questions..
 * Inevitable discovery doctrine: Nix v. Williams held that if the evidence obtained in the unlawful search would almost definitely have been found eventually even without said search (inevitable discovery), the evidence may be brought forth in court.
 * Good faith exception: If police officers act in objectively reasonable "good-faith belief” that their conduct is lawful, then the evidence acquired may still be used under the good-faith exception.
 * Independent Source Doctrine: If police obtain evidence illegally, but also obtain the same evidence through an independent, legal means, the evidence is admissible.
 * Knock-and-Announce Exception: Evidence that police obtain in violation of the requirement to knock and announce themselves before searching a home is admissible.
 * Attenuation : If the passage of time or intervening events break the causal relationship between the illegal activity and the evidence, the evidence may still be admissible. Some examples include:
 * If a defendant was illegally arrested, but returns to the police station voluntarily several days later and makes a statement, the statement may be admissible.
 * If a defendant was illegally stopped, but a valid outstanding arrest warrant is later discovered, evidence obtained during the stop may be admissible.


 * Formerly, the Silver Platter doctrine allowed state officials that obtained evidence illegally to to turn over evidence to federal officials, and have that evidence be admitted into trial. The doctrine was ruled unconstitutional in the case of Elkins v. United States in 1960..