Exclusionary Sanction (From Criminal Justice Administration Cases and Materials, Fourth Edition, P 16-61, 1991, Frank W Miller, Robert O Dawson, et al. -- See NCJ-129355)

• NCJ Number: 129356
• Author(s): F W Miller; R O Dawson; G E Dix; R I Parnas
• Date Published: 1991
• Length: 46 pages
• Sale Source: Foundation Press
• Publication Type: Legislation/Policy Description
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

Majority U.S. Supreme Court decisions related to the establishment of and exceptions to the exclusionary rule for illegally obtained evidence encompass Mapp v. Ohio (1961), Wong Sun v. United States (1963), and United States v. Leon (1984).

Abstract

In Mapp v. Ohio, the Court ruled that the exclusionary rule which holds inadmissible any evidence obtained illegally applies to State as well as Federal criminal proceedings. The Court majority reasoned that the "ignoble shortcut to conviction left open to the State tends to destroy the entire system of constitutional restraints on which the liberties of the people rest." In Wong Sun v. United States, the Court ruled that a confession obtained in the house where an unlawful arrest was executed was inadmissible, since it was a "fruit" of the agents' unlawful action. In the case of another petitioner in the case, however, a voluntary confession made at the police station subsequent to the unlawful arrest was held to be sufficiently unrelated to the unlawful arrest to be admissible. In United States v. Leon, the Court majority held that evidence obtained by officers acting in reasonable reliance on a search warrant issued by a detached and neutral magistrate but ultimately found to be unsupported by probable cause is admissible. The Court dissent reasoned that this exception will encourage police to provide only the bare minimum of information in future warrant applications. Notes interpret and explain the Court decisions and related post-decision developments.