Also known as: exclusionary rule · exclusionary evidence rules
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A rule that excludes or suppresses evidence obtained in violation of an accused person's constitutional rights. The rule renders inadmissible in criminal proceedings all evidence secured through searches and seizures that contravene the Fourth Amendment as incorporated against the states. Its purpose is to deter police misconduct by removing the incentive to violate constitutional protections.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Emmett Egan was arrested in his apartment after state officers conducted a warrantless search and seized documents. Egan moved to suppress the documents in his state criminal trial. The court granted the motion because the officers violated the Fourth Amendment and the exclusionary rule applies to state proceedings.
Ezra Eastman was arrested outside his office when a dispatcher reported an active warrant that had actually been quashed. Officers seized his laptop containing incriminating files. The court denied suppression because the officers reasonably relied on the database report and the isolated clerical error did not trigger exclusion.
Eileen Epstein's home was searched without a warrant and officers found stolen property. Prosecutors showed that a separate lawful investigation already underway would have uncovered the same items through routine inventory procedures. The court admitted the evidence under the inevitable discovery exception.
Eva Espinosa's residence was searched pursuant to a warrant later found to lack probable cause. Officers had no reason to doubt the neutral magistrate's issuance of the warrant. The court denied the suppression motion because the officers acted in objectively reasonable reliance on the warrant.
Evelyn Ellison's storage unit was located only after officers unlawfully searched her vehicle and found an address book. Agents used that address to obtain a warrant and seize documents inside the unit. The court suppressed the documents as fruit of the poisonous tree because the warrant rested directly on the initial illegality.
Edith Eberhardt was a passenger in a car stopped by police who found drugs under the seat. She moved to suppress the drugs claiming the stop was unlawful. The court denied the motion because Eberhardt had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the car's interior and therefore could not invoke the exclusionary rule.
Yes. The rule prohibits the use in state court of evidence obtained through searches and seizures that violate the Fourth Amendment. It applies through the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause to deter police misconduct.
The exception applies when officers reasonably rely on a warrant that is later found defective due to clerical errors or lack of probable cause. Suppression is unwarranted unless the officers' reliance was objectively unreasonable.
…recently fixed as Department of Justice policy. See Beaney, Right to Counsel 29-30, 36-42 (1955). In Mapp , which imposed the exclusionary rule on the States for Fourth Amendment violations, more than half of the States had themselves already adopted some such rule. See 367 U. S., at 651. In Gideon , which extended Johnson v.…
…to that very formal category. But the English cases that were the progenitors of the Confrontation Clause did not limit the exclusionary rule to prior court testimony and formal depositions, see Crawford, supra, at 52 , and n. 3. In any event, we do not think it conceivable that the protections of the Confrontation Clause can…
…to the States. The process began with Mapp v. Ohio , 367 U. S. 643 (1961), where the Court applied to the States the so-called exclusionary rule, rendering inadmissible at trial
…Amendment in such cases, and that the two guarantees of personal security conjoined in the Fourteenth Amendment to make the exclusionary rule obligatory upon the States. We relied upon the great case of Boyd v. United States , 116 U. S. 616, decided in 1886, which, considering the Fourth and Fifth Amendments as running "almost…
…implicit in the concept of ordered liberty and thus “enforceable against the States through the Due Process Clause” but that the exclusionary rule
Evidence is admissible if the prosecution proves the police would have discovered it through lawful means even without the unconstitutional conduct. The exception prevents the defendant from receiving a windfall from police error.
Derivative evidence obtained by exploiting an initial constitutional violation is also suppressed. The causal chain must be broken by an independent source, attenuation, or inevitable discovery for the evidence to be admissible.
No. Only a person whose own Fourth Amendment rights were violated may seek suppression. A passenger without a reasonable expectation of privacy in the searched area lacks standing to challenge the seizure.