Following a hearing on Cherry's motion to suppress, the district court ruled that all incriminating statements attributable to Cherry were inadmissible. Consider what the result would be if the court found the entry reasonable. Smith requested a phone call.
Much as our brain's ability to fuse the slightly different two-dimensional perspectives of each of our eyes enables us to see in three dimensions. Smith next filed a petition for hearing in the Alaska Supreme Court in which he argued that we erroneously upheld the trial court's application of the independent source doctrine and also argued that his rights under the state and federal constitutions had been violated.
LaFave, supra at Analogizing to the "independent source" doctrine applied in Segura v United States, US, ; S Ct, ; 82 L Ed 2dand the "inevitable discovery" rule adopted in Nix v Williams, US; S Ct; 81 L Ed 2drespondent and its amici argue that any evidence seized after an unreasonable, unannounced entry is causally disconnected from the constitutional violation and that exclusion goes beyond the goal of precluding any benefit to the government flowing from the constitutional violation.
III In determining whether exclusion is proper, a court must "evaluate the circumstances of this case in the light of the policy served by the exclusionary rule. The State claims that any error was harmless, in light of the fact that a quantity of cocaine was recovered from the side of the road near the location where Smith was apprehended.
Smith was convicted and appealed, arguing, among other things, that Judge Johnstone erred in not granting his motion to suppress because when Officer O'Brien questioned him, his rights under AS The only salient differences between my case and Wiggins were the charge for which the defendant was initially arrested auto theft, not burglary and the fact that in Wiggins the defendant initiated one of the pre-warning statements.
In asserting that at the time of the second search the agents had independently been planning on conducting a search of Cherry's ceiling, the government explicitly acknowledges that certain items of information obtained during the first search--specifically, the structure of the ceiling and the dusty footprint on Cherry's dresser--were most important in alerting the agents to the need for a second search.
The independent source exception requires that the police know of and act on lawfully obtained independent evidence at the time they take the challenged action here the application for a warrant.
For example, we may presume that an action recommended by all relevant modes of analysis is legitimate and that an action about which modes of analysis intractably conflict is illegitimate.
On the other hand, had the illegal police conduct undermined the reliability of the evidence obtained, as in the case of a coerced confession, such evidence would still be inadmissible.
The cases upon which this rule of thumb was based, however, spoke in terms of a "custodial interrogation. In his findings, Judge Sanders found that the circumstances surrounding Smith's arrest, the large sums of money, and the large quantities of drugs, led investigators to believe that they were dealing with a major supplier of drugs.
United States v Kane, supra at Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand this case to the trial court. The Court has stressed that the "prime purpose" of the exclusionary rule "is to deter future unlawful police conduct and thereby effectuate the guarantee of the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures.
He concluded that Smith had waived his opportunity to engage in further discovery and that it was inappropriate for Smith to ask for further discovery after the court had entered its ruling.
I say the ultimate touchstone is justice; you say it is the rule of law. Elsewhere I have described the lega l reasoning process of applying doctrine consisting of rules and principles to facts and of checking doctrine against theory as "three-dimensional.
In Williams, Iowa police, based on facts uncovered in an ongoing police investigation, had reason to believe that the defendant was responsible for the disappearance of a year-old girl from a YMCA building in Des Moines, Iowa.
The federal constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures have been extended to state proceedings through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. While looking for something with which to boost themselves up to the ceiling, the agents found a sneaker footprint on top of Cherry's dresser.
Similarly, if events indicate that compliance with the statutory requirements would be a useless gesture, the requirement that the police officers wait for admission may also be excused. Further, some investigations may not be routine or standard because of the unique nature of the crime involved.
Moreover, because the rule is prudential rather than constitutionally mandated, we have held it to be applicable only where its deterrence benefits outweigh its "substantial societal costs. As we have seen, the theory underlying the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine is that, when there is a close causal connection between the prior police misconduct and the availability of the challenged evidence, the evidence should be suppressed since the deterrent value of exclusion outweighs the competing interest in having all probative evidence put before the factfinder.
The Admissibility Ruling The trial court found that Boudra's testimony regarding the sequence of events was "particularly credible. A more detailed factual recitation may be found there.
After the motion was denied both Cooley and Bynum pled guilty to the crime. Courts must reject speculation that an attorney would act criminally or unethically in response to such a telephonic request.
Record citations have been updated to refer to the current record Because the validity of a consent to search obtained by the police subsequent to an illegal arrest is an issue that must be resolved in the first instance by the district court, see United States v.
This time the ICA concluded that the circuit court erred in failing to make necessary findings and conclusions; the ICA also held that the prosecution met its burden in proving inevitable discovery. In the United States, the exclusionary rule is a legal rule, based on constitutional law.
The rule prevents evidence collected or analyzed in violation of the defendant 's constitutional rights from. Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts, spanning the world's body of "learnable" knowledge.
Williams, supra, U.S.elonghornsales.comapproved an inevitable discovery exception to the exclusionary rule, it was not promulgating a revolutionary doctrine. Indeed, in. Criminal Procedure under Justice Ingles' Class. Crim Pro Flowcharts.
crim pro case digests. The exclusionary rule prevents the government from presenting evidence in trial which was gathered in violation of the Fourth Amendment’s protection against illegal search and seizure. A doctrine commonly used in American courts, the exclusionary rule discourages police and other law enforcement agents from obtaining evidence illegally.
The inevitable discovery exception was described in Hazelwood, P.2d atas follows: The doctrine is an exception to the exclusionary rule in cases where evidence has been obtained in violation of constitutional protections such as the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.Exceptions of the exclusionary rule the inevitability doctrine