Case Study: United States V. Havens

hopes that it would help prevent future clerical errors. Since one of the main goals of the exclusionary rule is to prevent future violations, and in this case clerical errors.

United States v. Havens (1980) addresses not whether or not evidence can be used in a criminal trial. Now the dilemma is not if it can be used but what it can be used for. In this case it cannot be used as evidence used to determine guilt. It can be used as impeachment evidence though. Meaning he loses credibility when testifying during trial.

Herring v. United States (2009), defines the difference between negligence and acting outside the scope of law is different than an officer doing wrong simply because of a systematic issue. The defendant in this case had illegal evidence obtained during a search incident to an arrest. The issue arose when it was discovered the warrant was not live. This systematical error was not the officer fault. In conclusion the court held that if the officers should be able to trust the system and in this case the validity of warrants.

With

the poisonous trees doctrine, attenuation has been has been addressed. Unreasonable searches and seizures are now tangible and intangible. These spoiled fruits have been expanded in there form. Statements, confessions, and other verbal and nonverbal incriminating evidence can be excluded during criminal trial. The key factor determining its admissibility in criminal court is its proximity to the fourth amendment violation. Leonettii (2016).
The right to privacy something that the fourth amendment attempts to provide.

However, as technological advancements are made, case law inquiring the advancements are subjected to weather there uses have violated the fourth amendment. Moreover, weather the evidence obtained through these new advances are fruits from the poisonous tree doctrine. In United States v. Knotts (1983) the concern was if the radio transmitter giving away the suspects location did not invade on their privacy. The decision was held on the grounds that someone traveling on public’s roads has a less expectation of privacy than in the person’s home. Similarly, in the case United States v. Karo (1984) was that placing a beeper in an ether container before it reaches the person in question to track its location is a violation of privacy. The reasoning behind this decision being that the ether container could be tracts by tracking its movements

physically.
Wong Sun Lee v United States (1963) is important case that addresses the proximity to intangible evidence obtained through an unlawful entry and arrest. However, in this case his confession came willingly from Wong Sun days later. Meaning that his confession could be admitted during his trial. This also led to establishing how evidence and even other people can be fruits of an illegal entry and arrest. Wong Sun’s counterpart in the case could be tried of the evidence immediately seized.
Later on in Oregon v. Elstad (1985), Elstad argued that a Fifth Amendment violation occurred. When his Miranda right were not given immediately a guilty confession at that time lead to a voluntary confession later on when his Miranda rights were given. However the court held that incriminating statements do not mean compulsion therefore, his statements after his Miranda rights did not violate the poisonous tree doctrine.
With time the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine not only applies to physical evidence but in Murray v. United States (1988) it addresses how intangible things can be excluded as well. The issue from this trial was not weather the evidence was in violation of the fourth amendment. It was that if it would have still been seized or obtain from an independent source of information. If the information would have been discovered through another source it can be considered as a part of the independent source doctrine.
A house or even a friend’s house provides more privacy that an automobile or public area would. If it is not the individual’s house or if that person has a roommate often the question of who has standing is important. The exclusionary rule cannot subject to permission from someone who does not have standing to give entry. In Minnesota v. Olson (1990) the key determining factor of the warrantless arrest was the privacy expectation provided by the home. Since they had abundant probable cause the officer could move forward on three factors either three factors: consent, warrant, or a form of exigency. However, in the courts decision they decided that since exigent factors were not present that there should have been a warrant. Therefore, the incriminating statements later made by the suspect were dropped. Found on the fact that privacy is expected even when it is not that person’s home. This came from Jones v. United States (1960). Where the court held that when spending the night for one night a person could claim fourth amendment privacy.
Nonetheless, one exception to the fourth amendment that pertains to illegal searches and seizures are administrational facilities. Correctional officers need to be allotted with the authority to protect themselves. Florence v. Board of education (2012) confirmed that correctional officers should be able to strip search new detainees for the safety of anyone in the jail. Thus, another utilitarian method is used by allotting safety the larger amount of people. Prisons and jails are subjected to extended rights of the fourth amendment. This is also based off the notion that inmate’s will try to find a way to slip in contraband and weapons if there are only searches when there is reasonable suspicion. Terry v. Ohio (1968) also goes along with this concept. When addressing stop and frisk it is for the personal safety of the officer. With reasonable suspicion provided then this less than arrest act is not a violation of the fourth amendment.
The evolution of the fourth amendment, exclusionary rule, and the fruits of a poisonous tree doctrine are implemented frequently. With each case new problems and ascertains arise. Some of this is found to be through new technological advances and law makers trying to keep up with it. This is because new technology is often used to aid in criminal cases. Sometimes there are exceptions to the exclusionary rule. Weather it is a good faith mistake or a matter of providing safety to administrational officers the good outweighs the bad. The utilitarian idea of the greater good can be easily applied. Officers need to be able to trust in the law. While correctional officers need to be allotted safety around inmates. Nonetheless, people have an expectation of privacy allotted to them from all levels of government. This could be in their own home, someone else, a car, or even a shared apartment. The best action to take is to have a valid probably cause, that either has a valid arrest warrant or some form of exigency.