Exclusionary Rule

EXCLUSIONARY RULE § 7.01 General Rule Evidence gathered in violation of the Fourth Amendment is not admissible in a criminal trial against the defendant. § 7.02 Exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule [A] Non-Trial Criminal Proceedings Illegally seized evidence may constitutionally be introduced in a variety of non-trial criminal proceedings including: grand jury proceedings, preliminary hearings, bail proceedings, sentencing, and proceedings to revoke parole. [B] Impeachment at Trial A prosecutor may introduce evidence obtained from a defendant in violation of the defendant's Fourth Amendment rights for the limited purpose of impeaching the defendant's: (1) direct testimony; or (2) answers to legitimate questions put to the defendant during cross-examination. However, such evidence may not be used to impeach other defense witnesses. James v. Illinois, 493 U.S. 307 (1990). [C] “Good Faith” Exception [1] In General Evidence obtained by a police officer in reasonable reliance on a search warrant that is subsequently found invalid may be admissible. United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984). It is necessary that a reasonably well-trained officer would have believed that the warrant was valid. This has come to be known as the “good faith” or Leon exception to the exclusionary rule. Many states, however, have rejected this exception. [2] Circumstances Suggesting Invalidity of Warrant Circumstances which should suggest to a police officer that a search warrant is not valid include: (1) the magistrate who issued the warrant relied on information supplied by an affiant who knew that the statements in the document were false or who recklessly disregarded the truth; (2) the magistrate's behavior was so lacking in neutrality that it would have been apparent to a reasonable officer, e.g., where the magistrate acts as a rubber stamp for the police by signing the warrant without reading it, while in the