What Would Happen If the Police Illegally Gathered Evidence?

The Constitution protects defendants against improperly obtained evidence.

The website of Massachusetts defense lawyer Stephen Neyman outlines the case of Dwayne Williams as an example of what occurs when police obtain evidence unconstitutionally. Williams was being treated for a stab wound at a hospital when police arrived. Against Williams' will, the police took Williams' blood-soaked clothing and later found cocaine in one of his boots. In court, Williams' lawyer made a "motion to suppress" the only evidence of drug possession the prosecution had -- the cocaine. The judge granted the motion and Williams walked out of court a free man.

Exclusionary Rule

On appeal, the higher court agreed with the original judge's application of the "Exclusionary Rule." The rule, which grew out of the Constitution's Fourth Amendment protection against "unreasonable search and seizure," denies the prosecution the right to use illegally obtained evidence in court and protects Americans from such police abuses as warrant-less invasions of their homes and seizure of property. By excluding the unconstitutionally gathered evidence, both Massachusetts courts acted to protect Williams' rights and prevent later police abuses against other Americans by removing the value to law enforcement of illegally obtained evidence.

Exceptions to the Rule

Although the Exclusionary Rule is based on the Constitution, it is not a constitutional right, per se, but, rather, a remedy and deterrent created by courts. According to the Legal Information Institute, the rule is not used when a courthouse error leads police to believe their evidence collection is proper, because applying the rule in such cases would not serve the rule's intended effect as deterrent to police officers violating the law in the future. Also, the prosecution may use illegally obtained evidence in court to show that a defendant's testimony has been untruthful.

Wiretaps

A report by the Center for Democracy and Technology says that judicial application of federal wiretap laws has weakened the Constitution's protection against illegal search and seizure. Though laws such as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) include statutory exclusionary rules, judges rarely grant defense motions to exclude evidence. According to the report, between 1985 and 1994, federal judges granted a total of 138 suppression motions out of 3,060 that were made. In criminal cases, not one motion to dismiss was granted under FISA.

Widespread Consequences

By the time officials began believing allegations that detective Jon Burge and other Chicago policemen had burned, shocked and suffocated confessions out of dozens of young African Americans during the 1980s, the statute of limitations had expired. Though Burge was sentenced in 2011 to four and a half years in prison for lying about the tortures in a lawsuit, his victims believe justice was not served. In addition to convicting at least two men with false confessions, Burge's actions further strained already tense relations between police and Chicago's black community and decades later, became a deciding factor in the abolition of capital punishment in Illinois.

References

• Stephen Neyman, P.C.; Massachusetts Criminal Defense Attorney Blog; Massachusetts Appeals Court Affirms Suppression Of Illegally Obtained Evidence; Stephen Neyman; March 2010
• Cornell University Law School; Exclusionary Rule; Aug. 2010
• Center for Democracy and Technology; The Nature and Scope of Governmental Electronic Surveillance Activity; July 2006
• The Huffington Post; Jon Burge Sentenced To 4 1/2 Years In Prison: Convicted Of Lying About Police Torture; Karen Hawkins; Jan. 2011