Illegally Obtained Evidence and the Attenuation Doctrine
Evidence and Admissibility
In all cases, whether civil or criminal, it is crucial to have evidence so that a court can decide whether the defendant is guilty or not. Courts not only look at the facts presented before them, but they also consider the evidence presented to back up these facts. Usually, any evidence presented before a court of law is either admissible or inadmissible. Admissible evidence is the one that a court considers before making its decision. Inadmissible evidence is usually null and void, and courts do not consider them as valid.
Whenever any evidence is presented before a court, the trial judge will look at how the evidence was obtained. In most cases, evidence obtained through unfair or illegal means such as torture or illegal searches and seizures is inadmissible, meaning that it does not hold up. Any evidence presented to a court should be able to able to affect probability. In other words, it should have some weight to back up the facts presented, and it should also be sufficiently relevant. Relevant evidence raises questions about admissibility.
The Attenuation Doctrine
The Fourth Amendment guarantees people of their security in their person, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. It is unconstitutional to violate these rights unless a warrant is issued upon probable cause. Such a warrant should contain details describing the person, place, and things to be searched and seized. Probable cause is the standard by which investigating officers have a reason(s) to obtain a search warrant to obtain evidence or a warrant for arrest.
However, the attenuation doctrine takes a different approach from the Fourth Amendment. It holds that evidence will be admissible when there is a connection between remote evidence and unconstitutional police conduct. The attenuation doctrine also states that evidence will be admissible even if the method used to obtain it was interrupted by intervening circumstances. The attenuation doctrine is best illustrated by the case of Utah v. Strieff- 136 S. Ct. 2056(2016). In this case, the arresting officer, Mr.Fackrell, had been observing people at a city residence for a week based on an anonymous tip. Upon surveillance, he observed many people briefly walk in and out of a house, and he was suspicious that the house’s occupants were selling drugs. At one point, Mr.Fackrell saw the defendant, Mr. Strieff, leave the house he was surveilling. He then detained the defendant in a nearby parking lot and asked him what he was doing in the said house. He proceeded to ask him to produce his identification documents before relaying the particulars of his identity to a police dispatcher who then told Mr.Fackrell that the defendant had an outstanding warrant of arrest for a traffic violation. He then searched him and found that he was in possession of drug paraphernalia and methamphetamine.
At the trial, the defendant argued that the evidence obtained should be suppressed since it was obtained unlawfully (an unlawful investigatory stop). His suppression of evidence motion was denied. The court of appeal affirmed this decision, but when the case went to the Supreme Court, it granted for certiorari to lower courts with an aim showing how the attenuation doctrine applies when illegal detentions lead to the discovery of valid search warrants. The Supreme Court believed that the evidence was inadmissible because the arresting officer arrested the defendant, and discovery was not based on particulars of the arrest warrant. As such, the Supreme Court agreed that the evidence should be suppressed. However, the Supreme Court applied the attenuation factors from Brown v. Illinois, and it was the opinion that there was no police misconduct, and the discovery was valid.
As we can see from the Supreme Court’s ruling, evidence seized after an illegal investigatory stop-where an arresting officer later learns that a suspect has a valid arrest warrant and proceeds to search the suspect- is admissible even under the Fourth Amendment. In other words, an arresting officer’s discovery of a valid warrant of arrest attenuates the link between illegal stops and evidence seized prior to an arrest.