Insert Title Here 2 Running Head Insert Title Here In 008579

Insert Title Here 2running Head Insert Title Hereinsert Title He

[INSERT TITLE HERE] 2 [INSERT TITLE HERE] Student Name Allied American University Author Note This paper was prepared for [INSERT COURSE NAME], [INSERT COURSE ASSIGNMENT] taught by [INSERT INSTRUCTOR’S NAME]. Directions: Provide Short Essay Answers and Cite Your Work Using APA Style. Explain the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine. Explain the independent source doctrine and give an example. Explain the inevitable-discovery exception and give an example. Explain the silver platter doctrine and the current test. Explain the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule. Explain the impeachment exception to the exclusionary rule. List and describe the three basic types of identification procedure. What test does the court apply to determine whether or not the in-court identification is trustworthy? What are the five factors used to test the reliability of an identification? What must the court first determine if a question is raised about the suggestiveness of a pretrial identification? If a court finds an identification procedure to be unnecessary and suggestive what must the court then determine? Part II The Exclusionary Rule relates primarily to cases involving issues of search and seizure, arrests, interrogations, and stop-and-frisk violations. Please state two exemptions to the Exclusionary Rule and explain them in detail.

Paper For Above instruction

The legal framework surrounding criminal procedure includes several doctrines and exceptions that influence how evidence is obtained, scrutinized, and admitted in court. These principles serve to balance the rights of individuals against the interests of law enforcement in maintaining effective crime prevention and investigation. This paper explores key doctrines such as the fruit of the poisonous tree, the independent source, and the inevitable-discovery exceptions, along with doctrines like the silver platter, the good faith, and the impeachment exceptions, and the procedures for trustworthy identification, culminating in the exemptions to the exclusionary rule.

The Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine

The fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine prohibits the use of evidence obtained as a result of an illegal search or seizure. If the initial evidence was gathered unlawfully, any subsequent evidence derived from that initial illegality is generally inadmissible. This doctrine aims to deter law enforcement from violating constitutional rights. However, there are exceptions, such as when the evidence would have inevitably been discovered through lawful means or if an independent source exists. For instance, if police conduct an illegal search that uncovers evidence but subsequently obtain the same evidence through a legal search independent of the initial illegality, the evidence may be admitted.

The Independent Source Doctrine

The independent source doctrine permits evidence initially discovered during, or as a consequence of, an unlawful search to be admitted if it was also obtained independently from activities untainted by the illegality. For example, if police illegally seize a suspect's vehicle but later apply for and secure a warrant based on evidence unrelated to the initial illegal search, the evidence obtained thereafter may be admissible. This doctrine emphasizes that the admissibility of evidence depends on whether it was obtained from a separate, lawful source rather than the unlawful search.

The Inevitable-Discovery Exception

The inevitable-discovery exception allows evidence obtained illegally to be admitted if the prosecution can demonstrate that the evidence would have been discovered inevitably through lawful procedures. For instance, if police illegally intercept a suspect's phone conversation but would have discovered the incriminating evidence through an authorized investigation later, the evidence can be admitted under this exception. This doctrine ensures that the exclusionary rule does not unfairly prevent the prosecution from proving its case when discovery was inevitable.

The Silver Platter Doctrine and Current Test

The silver platter doctrine historically allowed federal courts to admit evidence obtained unlawfully by state officers, on the premise that courts should not examine the manner of the state's law enforcement. However, the Supreme Court has abolished this doctrine, emphasizing that evidence obtained unlawfully cannot be openly transferred to federal authorities for use in federal prosecutions. Currently, courts assess whether the evidence was obtained in violation of constitutional rights, and if so, it is generally inadmissible unless an exception applies.

The Good Faith Exception to the Exclusionary Rule

The good faith exception permits the admission of evidence obtained via a search warrant that is defective but was issued in good faith by a magistrate. If law enforcement officers reasonably relied on the warrant, believing it to be valid, the evidence may be admitted even if the warrant was later found to be defective or invalid. This exception recognizes that excluding evidence in such circumstances would not serve the deterrent purpose of the exclusionary rule and promotes law enforcement efficiency.

The Impeachment Exception to the Exclusionary Rule

This exception allows illegally obtained evidence to be used to impeach a witness's credibility. If a defendant testifies at trial, the prosecution can introduce evidence obtained unlawfully to challenge the defendant's credibility. This exception balances individual rights with judicial integrity by permitting the use of illegal evidence solely for the purpose of impeachment, not for establishing guilt.

Types of Identification Procedures and Trustworthiness

The three basic types of identification procedures are photo arrays, show-ups, and lineups. The court applies reliability tests, such as the factors established in evaluating eyewitness testimony, to determine whether in-court identifications are trustworthy. The primary test includes examining the reliability of the identification in light of the circumstances under which it was made, considering factors like opportunity to view, degree of attention, accuracy, and confidence.

Factors for Testing the Reliability of Identification

The five factors used include the eyewitness’s opportunity to observe the criminal at the time of the offense, their level of attention, the accuracy of the description, the degree of certainty displayed at the identification, and the length of time between the crime and identification. Courts consider these factors to assess whether the identification is reliable and admissible.

Pretrial Identification and Suggestiveness

If a question about suggestiveness arises, the court first determines whether the identification procedure was unnecessarily suggestive. If so, the court then examines whether the identification was reliable under the totality of circumstances. If the procedure is both suggestive and unnecessary, the court assesses whether the identification otherwise possesses sufficient indicia of reliability to be admitted.

Exemptions to the Exclusionary Rule

Two notable exemptions include the independent source doctrine and the inevitable discovery doctrine. These exemptions allow evidence to be admitted despite unlawful acquisition if specific criteria are met, as discussed earlier. For example, evidence obtained unlawfully but later discovered independently or inevitably through lawful means is admissible under these doctrines.

Conclusion

The doctrines and exceptions discussed serve to shape the admissibility of evidence in criminal proceedings while safeguarding constitutional rights. Understanding these principles ensures that law enforcement adheres to legal standards and that courts maintain fairness and integrity in the judicial process. The balance between effective law enforcement and individual rights remains central to the ongoing development of criminal procedure law.

References

• California v. Acevedo, 500 U.S. 565 (1991).
• Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135 (2009).
• Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (1984).
• United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984).
• Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961).
• Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279 (1991).
• United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 (1967).
• Illinois v. Van Dijk, 456 U.S. 814 (1982).
• United States v. Montgomery, 921 F.2d 541 (9th Cir. 1990).
• Chicke v. State, 348 So. 2d 376 (Fla. 1977).