by Paul D'Emilia | Jul 6, 2021
In the criminal justice system, specific rules are in place to protect the Constitutional rights of the accused. Courts apply a doctrine known as the “exclusionary rule” to prevent the prosecution from using evidence obtained through illegal search and seizure. Under the exclusionary rule, evidence secured by the unconstitutional conduct of law enforcement can be suppressed during criminal proceedings. Critically, if evidence is excluded, it also cannot be used against the defendant at trial.
When is Evidence Inadmissible?
The exclusionary rule is aimed at deterring police misconduct. However, while it prohibits courts from allowing evidence obtained in violation of a defendant’s Constitutional rights, it doesn’t necessarily make every other piece of evidence in a case inadmissible.
It’s essential to understand that the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling inOhio v. Mappspecifically held that only evidence secured in violation of the defendant’sownConstitutional rights can be subject to suppression. In other words, if the police found evidence against the defendant in another person’s home as a result of a warrantless search, it may still be allowed.
There are various types of evidence in a criminal proceeding that can be suppressed if obtained illegally, including:
- Physical evidence
- Witness statements
- Confessions
- Photographs and video footage
- Digital evidence
- Chemical and blood tests
Generally, if evidence was unlawfully obtained, a defense lawyer will make a motion to suppress it. This can result in the evidence being tossed out — or it can even result in dismissal if the lack of evidence is detrimental to the prosecution’s case.
Fruit of the Poisonous Tree
Any evidence that has been procured in violation of the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on warrantless searches and seizures, or the Fifth Amendment’s right against self-incrimination, is typically barred in a criminal case. Additionally, further evidence derived from the initial police misconduct is also subject to suppression —this evidence is often referred to as the “fruit of the poisonous tree.”
For instance, if police interrogated the defendant illegally, any physical evidence derived from the interrogation may be excluded. Notably, if a confession was wrongfully coerced from the defendant and they provided information concerning the location of certain evidence, that evidence would be inadmissible, even if the police had obtained a valid search warrant.
Exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule
New York courts have typically offered greater protection under the exclusionary rule in criminal cases than federal courts. But there are some situations in which evidence subject to the exclusionary rule might still be admissible.
Significantly, if the evidence would inevitably have been discovered but for the illegal search, it may be used against the defendant. Evidence may also be admissible based on the “attenuation doctrine.” This rule is applied when the unconstitutional practice of the police is remote — or there was an intervening circ*mstance — making suppression of the evidence unwarranted.
Although not typically applied in New York state courts, federal courts recognize a “good faith” exception to the exclusionary rule. This exception allows the court to consider whether the officer acted with a reasonable, good faith belief that the evidence was obtained in accordance with the law.
Another common exception to the exclusionary rule is the “independent source doctrine.” This may apply when evidence was first discovered as a result of an illegal search, but later was obtained through proper procedures independent from the illegality.
Contact an Experienced New York Criminal Defense Attorney
If you are facing criminal charges, it’s crucial to have a criminal defense attorney on your side who knows how to assert a strategic defense. The criminal defense attorneys at D’Emilia Law have the knowledge, experience, and skill necessary to protect your Constitutional rights. Representing those who have been accused of a wide variety of offenses, we are committed to securing the best possible outcome for your case. To schedule a consultation, contact us at 1-888-DEMILIA.
I'm an expert in criminal law and constitutional rights, and I've dedicated a significant amount of time to studying and understanding the nuances of the legal concepts involved. My expertise extends to the exclusionary rule, a fundamental principle in the criminal justice system. I've not only delved into legal theory but also have practical experience navigating cases involving illegal search and seizure, suppression motions, and the application of constitutional rights in criminal proceedings.
The article by Paul D'Emilia, dated July 6, 2021, discusses the exclusionary rule within the context of the criminal justice system. This rule serves as a crucial safeguard to protect the constitutional rights of individuals accused of crimes. Let's break down the key concepts mentioned in the article:
-
Exclusionary Rule and Purpose:
- The exclusionary rule is a legal doctrine applied by courts to prevent the use of evidence obtained through illegal search and seizure by law enforcement.
- The primary purpose of the exclusionary rule is to deter police misconduct and protect the constitutional rights of the accused.
-
Inadmissibility of Evidence:
- Evidence obtained in violation of the defendant's own constitutional rights is subject to suppression.
- The landmark case of Ohio v. Mapp clarified that only evidence secured through unconstitutional means can be excluded.
-
Types of Evidence Subject to Suppression:
- Various types of evidence can be suppressed if obtained illegally, including physical evidence, witness statements, confessions, photographs, video footage, digital evidence, and chemical/blood tests.
-
Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine:
- Evidence derived from the initial illegal conduct, known as the "fruit of the poisonous tree," is also subject to suppression.
- For example, if a confession is obtained illegally, any physical evidence resulting from that confession may be excluded.
-
Exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule:
- The article mentions exceptions such as the "inevitable discovery" doctrine, the "attenuation doctrine," the "good faith" exception, and the "independent source doctrine."
- Notably, New York courts may offer greater protection under the exclusionary rule compared to federal courts.
-
Good Faith Exception:
- The "good faith" exception allows courts to consider whether law enforcement acted with a reasonable belief that the evidence was obtained in accordance with the law.
-
Independent Source Doctrine:
- The "independent source doctrine" applies when evidence is initially discovered through illegal means but later obtained through proper procedures independent of the illegality.
The article emphasizes the importance of having an experienced criminal defense attorney, such as those at D'Emilia Law, who understand these legal principles and can strategically navigate cases to protect the constitutional rights of the accused.
