A legal concept related to the exclusionary rule is the doctrine of the “fruit of the poisonous tree”. Under this doctrine, a court may exclude from trial not only evidence seized in violation of the United States Constitution, but also all other evidence from an illegal search. Since [Weeks was tried in 1914], this court has required federal employees to comply strictly with this order, which it has found to be clear, specific, and constitutionally obligatory—albeit judicially implied—without insisting that the Fourth Amendment has been reduced to a “form of words.”25Footnote Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 648 (emphasis added). In applying the rule to the states, it was necessary to establish that the rule was constitutional in origin and not the result of the exercise of the Court`s power of review over lower federal courts, since it could not be constitutionally extended to state courts.26 Example of an exclusionary rule that is not based on constitutional grounds. is found in McNabb v. United States, 318 U.S. 332 (1943) and Mallory v. United States, 354 U.S.
449 (1957), in which the Court required detainees to be brought before a judge without delay, holding that inadmissible confessions obtained after a reasonable time were inadmissible. The rule has not been extended to States, cf. Culombe v. Connecticut, 367 U.S. 568, 598–602 (1961), but the court`s use of the self-incrimination clause for the verification of confessions rendered such a request irrelevant in most cases. For an example of converting a prudential rule into a constitutional rule, see McCarthy v. United States, 394 U.S. 459 (1969), and Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (1969). In fact, in Wolf v.
Colorado,27 the footnotes did not flow from the express requirements of the Fourth Amendment. The decision was a matter of legal implications. 338 U.S. 25, 28 (1949). Justice Black was more explicit. I agree with what appears to be a clear implication of the court`s view that the federal exclusionary rule is not a Fourth Amendment order, but a court-created rule of evidence that Congress could deny. Id., pp. 39-40. It continued to adhere to the supervisory authority foundation in strict search and seizure cases, Berger v. New York, 388 U.S. 41, 76 (1967) (different), unless self-incriminating values were present.
Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 661 (1961) (agreed). See also id., p. 678 (dissenting opinion of Harlan J.); Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206, 216 (1960) (Stewart J. for the Court). In refusing to extend the exclusionary rule to states, Frankfurter J. appeared to conclude that the rule was based on the Court`s powers of review.
Mapp notes that the provision is constitutional in origin, but that does not necessarily mean that it is immune from revision of the law. In 1914, the U.S. Supreme Court enacted a strong version of the exclusionary rule, in Weeks v. United States, under the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits improper search and seizure. [14] However, this decision only created the rule at the federal level. The “weekly rule,” which made an exception for state-level cases, was adopted by many states at once during prohibition. In adopting the rule, state actions often reflected attitudes toward prohibition enacted by the Eighteenth Amendment and enforced by the Volstead Act. Concerns about data breaches also extended to other cases where criminal sanctions were allowed for “victimless” crimes, such as illegal gambling or drug-related offences. [15] For example, it is not clear from the Court`s analysis in Leon and Descendants whether a majority of judges would also support a bona fide exception for evidence seized without a warrant, although there is broad language to be applied to seizures without warrant.63FootnoteNor was the analysis in Leon focused on the adequacy of relying on: an arrest warrant. However, the Court has repeatedly used language broad enough to apply to warrantless searches. See, for example, 468 U.S. at 909 (citing Justice White`s approval in Illinois v.
Gates): the balanced approach that has evolved. “strongly proposes that the exclusionary rule be amended more generally to allow for the introduction of evidence obtained in good faith that a search or seizure was in accordance with the Fourth Amendment”; and id.