Exclusionary Rule And Civil Liability Case Study

The Exclusionary Rule and Civil Liability
Mark McCormick
Kaplan University

­­­­

CJ-299
Professor Donna Yohman
August 30, 2014 In 1914, Weeks v. United States was decided by the Supreme Court. In Weeks, the Court made a landmark decision relating to illegal search and seizure by law enforcement called the Exclusionary Rule. The Exclusionary Rule provided that evidence “illegally seized by law enforcement officers in violation of a suspect’s right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures cannot be used against the suspect in a criminal prosecution.” (Exclusionary Rule, 2010, p. 287). However, it was not until the 1961 case of Mapp v. Ohio that the Court made the Exclusionary Rule binding on the states
through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Furthermore, in the 1920 case of Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, the Court expanded the scope of the Exclusionary Rule by also prohibiting the use of any evidence which was obtained with the assistance of information previously banned under the Exclusionary Rule. This was labeled by the Court as the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine. For example, if an illegal search was conducted on a person’s cellular phone which subsequently led to the seizure of an amount of narcotics, the information gleaned from the phone would be inadmissible under the Exclusionary Rule; however, the narcotics seized would be considered “fruit” from the illegally obtained information and therefore inadmissible as well. This paper will review the homicide of Clyde Stevens and determine how the Exclusionary Rule and/or fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine applies. It will also discuss the legal ramifications which officers can face as a result of conducting an illegal search, as well as what step should’ve been taken by law enforcement to protect the integrity of the investigation and ensure the admissibility of all evidence seized.
During the initial response to Ms. Mary Ellis’ 911 call the police located Mr. Stevens’ deceased body in her walk in closet. Crime scene technicians then arrived on scene and processed the entire residence using specialized equipment. Upon responding to these types of emergencies law enforcement is allowed to “make a prompt warrantless search of the area to see if there are other victims or if a killer is still on the premises.” (Mincey v. Arizona, 1978). Mincey further allowed officers to seize evidence found in plain view during the emergency; however, once the emergency is contained a search warrant must be obtained. Thus, the search of Ms. Ellis’ residence would be illegal and the bloody fingerprint located and processed at the scene would be inadmissible as evidence under the Exclusionary Rule. Furthermore, the later analysis and results from the evidence recovered from the scene would be considered “fruit” and also be inadmissible as evidence under the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine. Therefore any and all evidence obtained from the scene was the product of an illegal search and cannot be used in the prosecution of Mr. Williams.
Do to the fact that the police agency investigating the Stevens homicide conducted an illegal search and subsequent seizure of evidence, this raises the question of if they could be held civilly liable for their actions. “Historically…police mistakes of law have been condemned by courts, triggering first tort liability.” (Logan, 2011, p. 70). So the answer to this question is yes; however, over time recent case law has shown the courts leniency toward police officers mistakes of law. This has been held time and time again by the courts when determining police liability. This paper does not condone police violations of law, nonetheless, in cases such as Stoner v. California and United States v. Leon the courts have shown their willingness to excuses the violations if they are considered objectively reasonable or done in good faith. There is really no definitive answer as to what decision will be made in this case as the courts have ruled for and against officers for their mistakes of law. Although, arguments could be made by the state in the Stevens homicide for both the reasonableness of the search, as well as, it being conducted in good faith by officers. This does not mean that the Exclusionary Rule will not attach and evidence will be admissible. On the contrary, the evidence will not be admissible but the officer may be excused from liability. The only way to definitively avoid civil liability during the process of discharging official police duties is to understand and properly abide by Constitutional laws and current state statutes.
In the case of the Stevens homicide, the author believes several small procedural differences could have been conducted by the police which would have insured the admissibility of evidence and prevented any civil liability. As outlined in the preceding paragraphs, the authority of the police to enter and secure the scene of an emergency is protected by case law. The issue in this case, just as in Mincey, is that once the emergency or exigent circumstance is contained law enforcement must then obtain a warrant to continue the search. In both of these cases the officers continued a further, intrusive, search still acting under the emergency exception to the warrant requirement. At the point when there becomes no further threat of injury or destruction of evidence, the officers in this case should have stopped the search until a search warrant was granted by a judge. Upon a search warrant being obtained the admissibility of all evidence subsequently collected would be ensured. This would have also protected the officers against any civil liability they were subject to as a result of an illegal warrantless
search. If evidence is allowed to be illegally obtained and used in the prosecution of a person then Fourth amendment protection is invalidated.
Therefore, the Exclusionary Rule and fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine was created as an important protection of the Fourth Amendment. This paper has discussed the Exclusionary Rule, fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine, and the difference between the two. It has also discussed the civil liability that officers may be subject to for their mistakes and how they may be forgiven from liability if their mistake was objectively reasonable or if it was made in good faith. Lastly, the author has discussed the importance of obtaining a search warrant when available and how this seemingly simple procedural step will prevent the suppression of evidence, as well as, protect the officer and agency against any civil liability. Although many times officers’ conduct searches under the emergency exception of the warrant requirement, it is generally a lackadaisical excuse which can hardly be defended. In modern times with the inception of recent technology it has become quicker and easier to obtain search warrants, either telephonically or by electronic means. Therefore, it should be instilled in officers through academic and field training to always secure consent or a search warrant prior to conducting a search in order to protect themselves and the integrity of the
investigation.

References
Exclusionary Rule. (2010). In D. Batten (Ed.), Gale Encyclopedia of American Law (3rd ed., Vol. 4, pp. 287-290). Detroit: Gale. Retrieved from: http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CCX1337701673&v=2.1&u=chic13451&it=r&p=GVRL&sw=w&asid=5580147f35941e1c0574fac566b3f2ed
Logan, W.A. (2011). Police mistakes of law. Emory Law Journal, 61(1), 69-110. Retrieved from: http://search.ebscohost.com.lib.kaplan.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edslex&AN=edslex581BAB7C&site=eds-live
Mincey v. Arizona, 437 US 385 - Supreme Court (1978).