SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MIRANDA AND THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE

SIMILARTIES

• Both Miranda and the Exclusionary Rule apply to government officials only
• Both have judicially created exceptions
• Defense must file a motion to suppress if either of these rules are violated
• Both rules apply to criminal investigations
• Both deter police misconduct

SIMILARITIES CONTINUED

• A violation of either of these rules can cause a defendant to be set free
• Both rules are put in place to protect the public
• The burden of proof is a preponderance of the evidence and is on the prosecutor
• Both are triggered by violations of constitutional rights
• Both pertain to evidence

DIFFERENCES

• Miranda is applicable before a grand jury but the exclusionary rule is not
• The exclusionary rule applies to both criminal and civil cases, but Miranda only applies to criminal cases
• Miranda applies to suspects in custody, and the exclusionary rule applies to both in and out of custody
• Miranda is protected by the 5th and 6th Amendments/ The exclusionary rule is under the 4th Amendment
• Miranda was put in place in 1961 and the exclusionary rule was put put in place in 1966

THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE

EXCLUSIONARY RULE ORIGINS

• Judicially created: Weeks v. U.S. Applied ER to federal officers
• Safeguards the 4th Amendment
• Effective to deter police misconduct rather than to protect personal constitutional rights U.S. v. Calandra
• Illegally obtained evidence (fruit of the poisonous tree) in violation of the 4th is not admissible as evidence
• Mapp v. Ohio applied the ER to the states via the 14th Amendment (due process clause)

THE 4TH AMENDENMENT

THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO BE SECURE

• In their persons
• In their houses
• In their papers
• And their effects
• Shall not be violated and

AND NO WARRANT SHALL ISSUE, BUT UPON

• Probable cause
• Supported by oath or affirmation
• And particularly describing the place to be searched
• And the person or things to be seized

TRIGGERING THE ER

• Violation of the 4th by a government official
• Evidence must be secured
• Connection between the violation and the secured evidence
• Defense must file a motion to suppress
• The burden of proof is a preponderance of evidence on the state

HARMLESS ERROR

DETERRENT VALUE

HERRING V. U.S. (2009)

• Deliberate
• Reckless
• Grossly negligent
• Recurring negligence
• ER must have a deterrent value

ELKINS V. U.S. (1960)

THE PURPOSE OF THE ER IS DETERRENCE

VIRGINIA V. MOORE (2008)

FRUIT OF THE POISONOUS TREE

ANY EVIDENCE GATHERED AS AN INDIRECT RESULT OF A VIOLATION OF 4A

EXCEPTIONS TO THE

EXCEPTIONS TO ER

• Good Faith
• Independent Source
• Inevitable Discovery
• Attentuation (purged taint)
• Impeachment (credibility)

EXCEPTIONS CONTINUED

• Probation
• Hot Pursuit
• Public Safety

NON-TRIAL EXCEPTIONS

• Grand Jury
• Sentencing
• Prelim Hearings
• IRS Hearings
• Bail Hearings

NON-TRIAL EXCEPTIONS CONT

• Parole Revocation Hearings

ER IS NOT TRIGGERED BY

SOME EXAMPLES OF NO VIOLATION

• Plain View
• Seizures of Non-Citizens
• Searches by private persons
• Border Searches
• Aerial Searches

NO VIOLATION CONT

• Open Fields
• Exigent Circumstances
• Aliens Residing Outside U.S.

DESCRIPTION OF

GOOD FAITH EXCEPTION

• United States v. Leon (1984)
• Officer believes in Good Faith that
• No warrant was necessary or
• Warrant was valid but was not
• Not applicable if officer should have known better

GOOD FAITH CONT

• Massachusetts v. Shepard (1984)
• Judge assured officers of good warrant
• But judge had not made necessary changes
• Arizona v. Evans (1995)-No deterrent effect,
• Because officer found drugs during a search incident to arrest

OKLAHOMA AND SOME OTHER STATES LIMIT

OKLAHOMA WILL NOT HONOR GOOD FAITH IF

• It can be proven that police deliberately executed a bad warrant
• Issuing Magistrate abandoned his judicial role for that of executive (neutrality)
• The warrant was defective on its face
• The officer lied or mislead the judge
• The bare bones affidavit lacking probable cause

INDEPENDENT SOURCE EXCEPTION

MURRAY V. U.S. (1988)

• Suspect was under surveillance for illegal drug activity
• Agents made illegal entry into warehouse
• Bails of marijuana were found
• Search warrant was then obtained
• Warrant made no mention of illegal entry

MURRAY V. U.S. (1988) CONT

• Supreme Court ruled
• If there is an independent source
• Then suppression is not required

SEGURA AND COLON V. U.S. (1984)

INEVITABLE DISCOVERY

NIX V. WILLIAMS

• Discovery of evidence was inevitable
• Evidence would have been found
• Regardless of officer's violation of 4th A.
• To qualify, prosecution must prove that it would have been found
• Body was found within 10 feet of the search party

ATTENUATION (PURGED TAINT)

ATTENUATION (PURGED TAINT)

• Following event removes the taint
• Of the violation that led to the evidence
• The exclusionary rule does not
• Lack of connection (time, intervention by free will, religion)
• Purges the taint of the constitutional violation

IMPEACHMENT EXCEPTION

PROBATION EXCEPTION

UNITED STATES V. KNIGHT (2001)

• A condition of probation
• No 4th A. Limitation on warrant less searches
• If conducted with a probationary purpose
• Reasonable suspicion must exist
• Parolees are subject to search at anytime

SAMSON V. CALIFORNIA (2006)

• Warrant less searches
• Pursuant to parolee's agreement
• To be subject to search at anytime
• Extended Knight (2001)

PENN BOARD OD PROBATION AND PAROLE V. SCOTT (2001)

• Evidence illegally obtained is
• Still admissable
• The exclusionary rule is not applicable to
• Parole revocation hearings

MIRANDA

MIRANDA WARNINGS

• You have the right to remain silent
• Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law
• You have the right to speak to an attorney or have one present during questioning
• If you can't afford a lawyer, one will be appointed to you before questioning
• If you decide to make a statement, you may stop at any time

MIRANDA CON'T

• Do you understand each of these rights I've explained to you?
• Having these rights in mind, do you wish to speak to us now?

MIRANDA CUSTODY DEFINITION

• The period of time from which the defendant was read warnings
• And questioning began to the time that police dominated atmosphere
• Ends and the person is released back to normal life

COURT CASES

MIRANDA V. ARIZONA (1966)

• A statement is involuntary if
• No Miranda Warning is given
• Person must be in custody and interrogated

CUSTODY DEFINED BY MIRANDA V ARIZONA

• Custody-is an arrest or when freedom is significantly deprived
• to be equivalent to arrest.

INTERROGATION DEFINED BY MIRANDA

• Interrogation-the use of words or
• actions to illicit an incriminating response
• from an average person.

DOYLE V. OHIO (1976)

• A defendant's silence may not be used to
• impeach his credibility on the stand

DUNAWAY V. NEW YYORK (1979)

• Seizing a person without warrant or
• probable cause is a 4th A. Violation
• and is not purged by Miranda.
• This was an illegal arrest.

DUNAWAY (1979) CON'T

• Determining if a confession was obtained by exploitation of an illegal arrest:
• Temporal proximity of the arrest and confession
• Presence of intervening circumstances
• Purpose and flagrancy of the official misconduct

NORTH CAROLINA V. BUTLER (1979)

• Held: an explicit statement of waiver is not necessary to
• support a finding that the defendant has waived his rights.
• Waiver may be inferred by the suspects actions.

EDWARDS V. ARIZONA (1981)

• Defendant was read his rights and chose to invoke them by asking for counsel.
• The next day, officers re-read the warning and began questioning again
• which led to an incriminating statement. The court suppressed the statement.
• See Maryland v. Shatter (2010) for extension

CALIFORNIA V. BEHELER (1983)

• Miranda Warnings are not necessary just because
• An individual is in a "coercive" environment in the station house or
• because the individual is a person of interest in a case.

NEW YORK V. QUARLES (1984)

• Public safety exception to Miranda.
• Police saw an empty gun holster on his person
• and asked him were the gun was before questioning him.
• Immediate public safety issue

OREGON V. ELSTAD (1985)

• Absent deliberate coercion, Miranda is sufficient
• to cures unwarned statement.
• Missouri v. Seibert

MORAN V. BURBINE (1986)

• Police failed to inform suspect that
• counsel had been retained and lied and told
• counsel that suspect would not be questioned until the
• following day. The court ruled that these would have no bearing on the case.
• His statement was uncovered.

ILLINOIS V. PERKINS (1990)

• Miranda is not necessary for
• incarcerated persons when they give info to an undercover
• officer acting as an inmate.

DAVIS V. U.S. (1994)

• A suspect must actually ask for counsel to invoke
• his right to counsel.

THOMPSON V. KEOHANE (1996)

• Two requirements to determine if a suspect is in custody
• In custody type treatment (court must determine totality of circumstances)
• The court must determine if a reasonable person would have felt
• free to leave.

U.S. V. LACKEY (10TH Cir., 2003)

• Public Safety exception
• Police may ask if suspect is in possession of weapons
• without waiver.

FELLERS V. U.S. (2004)

• After indictment, fellers was arrested and questioned
• without counsel and without being Mirandized.
• He made incriminated statements before being
• Mirandized and was then read his rights. The court
• Struck down the statements which were made before rights were read.

MISSOURI V. SEIBERT (2004)

• Clarified Elstad. Officer deliberately
• withheld Miranda and extracted a confession
• for murder 1. Elstad does not apply to deliberate
• and systematic omission of information of rights.

BERGHUIS V. THOMPKINS (2010)

• Invocation of rights must be express.
• The actions and words of a suspect are sufficient
• to infer a waiver.

FLORIDA V. POWELL (2010)

• The defense claimed that the wording of Miranda which was read by
• police was misleading. The advisory Satisfied Miranda requirements.

BOBBY V. DIXON (2011)

• A person can not invoke Miranda in anticipation of being arrested.
• A person must wait until Miranda is read to invoke rights.

J.D.B. V. NORTH CAROLINA (2011)

• Age is a factor in determining whether
• an in custody situation exists.

HOWES V. FIELDS (2012)

• A person who is incarcerated is
• not in custody.

U.S. V. FERGUSON (2ND Cir. 2012)

• Defense said time delay
• defeated the public safety claim,
• but court ruled that the was still
• an immediate danger to public safety.

U.S. V. INFANTE (1st Cir. 2012)

• Officers are not required to respect 5th A. If
• A person is not in custody.