The Gardner Law Firm, PLC | Brandon Gardner
I think you mean "what are the 6 exceptions to the exclusionary rule?" 1) The good-faith exception 2) Fruit of the Poisonous Tree 3) Inevitable discovery 4) Independent source 5) Statutory or ministerial violations 6) Non-criminal proceedings.
Answer Applies to: Michigan
Law Office of Richard Williams | Richard Williams
1.) The good faith exception. 2.) Open fields or in plain view. 3.) Emergency doctrine. 4.) Hot pursuit. 5.) Evidence discovered during a Terry Type Stop & Frisk. 6.) When independent evidence exists that would otherwise have caused a search to be illegal. These are the only ones I can think of.
Answer Applies to: Alabama
Nenye Uche—Attorney at Law | Nenye Uche
Simply because a police officer has illegal seized evidence does not automatically guarantee that the evidence would be excluded. The United States Supreme Court has emphasized that the exclusionary rule is appropriate only where the rules's remedial objectives outweigh the social cost of excluding the evidence. Simply put, application of the exclusionary rule should only be used on a case by case basis. With that framework in mind, here are some of the exceptions to the rule: *Good faith: * * * Illegally seized evidence would not be excluded if the police officers had reasonable, good faith belief that they were acting according to legal authority, such as by relying on a search warrant that is later found to have been legally defective. *Inevitable discovery rule:* If the prosecution can establish (by a preponderance of the evidence) that the illegally seized evidence would ultimately have been discovered by lawful means, then such evidence is admissible. *Independent source doctrine*: Illegally discovered evidence is admissible if the police later conducted a lawful search that was independent of the initial discovery. For instance, if police officers illegally enter an unoccupied home and find drugs and instead of seizing the drugs, the police officers leave everything untouched and return to a judge for a search warrant. If the police officers return with a search warrant, then the drugs would be deemed legally seized even though the police initially discovered them through an illegally search. *Clerical errors*: Illegally seized evidence would not be excluded if the police relied on what is later found out to be a clerical error of a court employee. For instance a warrant with the wrong address or wrong name. *Lastly*, there are limitations in applying the exclusionary rules during certain proceedings. For instance, the exclusionary rule does not apply in grand jury proceedings, during cross examination (for impeachment), parole revocation hearings, civil proceedings/immigration and federal habeas corpus proceedings. Hope this helps.
Answer Applies to: Illinois
Herschel Bullen | Herschel Bullen
Objectively reasonable good faith reliance 1. on mistaken data or information from a judicial employee; 2. on a search warrant that is later found to be unsupported by probable cause; 3. on a search warrant that contains clerical errors; 4. on a statute with a constitutional defect that was not sufficiently obvious; 5. on unequivocally binding legal authority later reversed or abrogated; 6. on a subsequently invalidated statute. There are probably other good faith reliance exceptions as well.
Answer Applies to: Utah
Lee Law Group | Ernest Lee
Friends, I don't know of 6 good faith exceptions. I know of 4 good faith exceptions. First, here is a little background. The exclusionary rule is a legal doctrine that states if evidence is obtained in violation of one's constitutional rights, this evidence can't be used, or is EXCLUDED, against the person whose rights were violated. Rationale: the main purpose of the exclusionary rule is to deter improper police misconduct, and this purpose cannot be served where the police are acting in good faith. The Good Faith Exceptions are: That the EXCLUSIONARY RULE does not apply when the police act in good faith based on 1. Case law later changed by another judicial opinion; 2. A facially valid statute or ordinance as it then exists even if the law is later declared unconstitutional or is later changed by court decision; 3. Reliance of a defective search warrant; 4. Evidence obtained during an arrest made on the basis of a computer report that due to clerical errors not made by the police indicated there was an arrest warrant outstanding against the defendant. There are also exceptions to the Good faith exceptions.
Answer Applies to: California
R. Jason de Groot, P.A | R. Jason de Groot
One would need to know the precise exclusionary rule you are asking about. There are many. Attorneys usually will not do research for free. You can go to the local law library and do research yourself. There may be one in your county courthouse.
Answer Applies to: Florida
Mark Thiessen, Attorney at Law | Mark Thiessen
* Evidence unlawfully obtained from the defendant by a private person is admissible. The exclusionary rule is designed to protect privacy rights, with the Fourth Amendment applying specifically to government officials. * Evidence can only be suppressed if the illegal search violated the person's own (the person making the court motion) constitutional rights. The exclusionary rule does not apply to privacy rights of a third party. However, there is a narrow exception to this standing requirement, the jus tertii standing exception. See, e.g., Singleton v. Wulff Et Al., 96 S. Ct. 2868, 428 U.S. 106 (U.S. 1976); The Assertion of Constitutional Jus Tertii: A Substantive Approach, Robert Allen Sedler, California Law Review, Vol. 70, No. 6 (Dec., 1982), pp. 1308-1344; Standing to Assert Constitutional Jus Tertii, 88 Harv.L.Rev. 423, (1974). * The defendant cannot take advantage of the situation (police breaching rules) to turn the case to his advantage, in face of other evidence against himself. This falls under the exigent circumstances exception.  * The Silver Platter doctrine which was ruled unconstitutional in the case of Elkins v. United States in 1960. State officials that obtained evidence illegally were allowed to turn over evidence to federal officials, and have that evidence be admitted into trial. * Nix v. Williams held that if the evidence obtained in the unlawful search would almost definitely have been found eventually even without said search (inevitable discovery), the evidence may be brought forth in court. * If police officers acting in good faith (bona fides) rely upon a defective search warrant, then the evidence acquired may still be used under the good-faith exception.
Answer Applies to: Texas
Law Offices of Mark L. Smith | Mark L. Smith
I do not refer to the exceptions to the 6 good faith exceptions. My understanding is that the exceptions are (1) standing to challenge the search, (2) the Good Faith Exception United States v. Leon, (3) Attenuation Exception Brown v. Illinois (time lapse and not so flagrant), (4) Independent Source Exception discovered through a source independent of the illegality (5) Inevitable Discovery Exception (if the evidence would have been found through independent lawful means) Nix v. Williams and (6) Collateral Uses (not used in criminal proceedings but can be used in civil tax proceedings, parole hearings, violation hearings sentencing hearings.
Answer Applies to: Rhode Island