Multiple Choice
1. The primary justification for the exclusionary rule is _____.
a.
discouraging or deterring police misconduct
b.
ensuring judicial discretion
c.
helping innocent defendants avoid conviction
d.
helping guilty defendants avoid conviction
The Exclusionary Rule (or the Rule of the Exclusion of Evidence)
CEPC.GARD.16.9.1
2. The U.S. Supreme Court made the exclusionary rule mandatory in federal courts in _____.
a.
b.
c.
d.
The Exclusionary Rule (or the Rule of the Exclusion of Evidence)
CEPC.GARD.16.9.1
3. The U.S. Supreme Court made the exclusionary rule binding on the states in _____.
a.
b.
c.
d.
The Exclusionary Rule (or the Rule of the Exclusion of Evidence)
CEPC.GARD.16.9.1
4. The federal exclusionary rule has become very complex since the 1961 _____ case.
a.
Mapp v. Ohio.
b.
Weeks v. U.S.
c.
Miranda v. Arizona.
d.
Settles v. Arkansas.
CEPC.GARD.16.9.3
5. The doctrine making the exclusionary rule applicable to evidence obtained indirectly from unconstitutional
police conduct is termed the _____ doctrine.
a.
dissipation of taint
b.
attenuation
c.
fruit of the poisonous tree
d.
inevitable discovery
6. Under which circumstance would the exclusionary rule be applied?
a.
exigent circumstances
b.
inevitable discovery
c.
independent source
d.
attenuation of the taint
7. Evidence obtained in violation of Miranda is generally treated differently than evidence obtained from other
violations in that _____.
a.
the exclusionary rule does not apply to the statement obtained in violation of Miranda. .
b.
statements obtained in violation of Miranda must be excluded in federal courts but not in state courts.
c.
statements obtained in violation of Miranda must be excluded in state courts but not in federal courts.
d.
the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine does not apply to physical evidence obtained from Miranda
violations.
8. If the police can show they would have eventually found the evidence anyway by legal means, it may trigger
the _____ exception to the exclusionary rule.
a.
exigent circumstances
b.
inevitable discovery
c.
independent source
d.
attenuation of the taint
9. If the police can show that the evidence was discovered by two methods, one of which was lawful, it may
trigger the _____ exception to the exclusionary rule.
a.
exigent circumstances
b.
inevitable discovery
c.
independent source
d.
attenuation of the taint
10. The exclusionary rule applies to evidence obtained _____ police misconduct.
a.
only directly from
b.
as a natural consequence of
c.
in association with
d.
directly or indirectly from
11. Application of the fruit of the poisonous tree rule is more complicated where the improper police conduct is
other than a _____ Amendment violation.
a.
Third
b.
Fourth
c.
Fifth
d.
Sixth
12. One of the costs (and criticisms) of the federal exclusionary rule is that it _____.
a.
is too simple to covers a variety of situations
b.
may result in innocent people being convicted
c.
may result in guilty people being acquitted
d.
has no exceptions
13. Among the arguments in favor of the exclusionary rule is that it _____.
a.
deters police misconduct and is the only practical means to enforce rights
b.
only keeps unreliable scientific evidence out of the courts
c.
may result in numerous innocent people being convicted
d.
makes it far more difficult for law enforcement to ensure convictions
14. The fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine is also known as the _____ rule.
a.
attenuation of the taint
b.
inevitable discovery
c.
derivative evidence
d.
independent source
15. When the exclusionary rule applies, the evidence will be _____.
a.
truncated
b.
didacted
c.
assimilated
d.
excluded
d
Exceptions to the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine
CEPC.GARD.16.9.4
16. When a significant period of time goes by between the improper conduct and the new evidence, the U.S.
Supreme Court has long held that the “_____” from the improper conduct can be dissipated.
a.
taint
b.
consequences
c.
repercussions
d.
impact
Exceptions to the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine
CEPC.GARD.16.9.3
17. Improper police conduct must be deterred in order to accomplish the purpose of the _____ Amendment.
a.
Second
b.
Eighth
c.
First
d.
Fourth
d
CEPC.GARD.16.9.5
18. The Self-Incrimination Clause has only one, specific goal: to protect against compelled, self-incriminating
statements, and thus falls under the _____ Amendment.
a.
Fourteenth
b.
Second
c.
Fourth
d.
Fifth
d
The Miranda Rule, Confessions, and the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine
19. If _____ statements are made or evidence discovered from consensual talks between police and citizens, the
statements or evidence may be used in criminal prosecutions.
a.
inflammatory
b.
incriminating
c.
coerced
d.
alibi
b
The Miranda Rule, Confessions, and the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine
20. Knock-and talk sessions can become “_____”, if the questioning changes from consensual to interrogation,
and may result in constitutional violations.
a.
voluntary
b.
derogatory
c.
custodial
d.
situational
Case 9.1
Police stop Bill Stoner, a known drug dealer, for operating a vehicle with no tail lights, after he is observed
pulling away from a parking lot in a high crime area know for drug transactions. Bill appears extremely
nervous as he speaks with the officers. The primary officer requests the registration and insurance card for the
vehicle. As Sam opens the glove box to retrieve the paperwork, the cover officer spots a hollow point bullets in
the glove box. She notifies her partner and Sam is immediately removed from the car and frisked for possible
weapons. The officer finds a loaded handgun in Bill’s waist band and he placed under arrest. As the cover
officer is securing the bullets, she notices Bill’s cell phone on the front seat buzzing. She opens the phone and
views multiple texts from Donny Bosco warning Bill that “The cops are in the area get my bag of weed and
coke out of your trunk.” The officers secure Bill in the patrol car and search the trunk of Bill’s car. In the trunk
they find a large black duffle bag containing two pounds of marijuana and two kilograms of cocaine.
Bill is transported back to headquarters and placed in an interrogation room. The arresting officer shows the
duffle bag full of drugs to Bill and tells him “you’re going away for a long time unless you talk”. Bill is
questioned about his association with Donny Bosco and his part in the distribution of drugs. Bill completes and
signs a Miranda waiver form and then provides a videotaped confession in which he criminally implicates
Donny Bosco as the drug distribution leader. In addition to the charges against Bill Stoner, Donny Bosco is
indicted on several felony drug tracking charges.
21. At trial Bill Stoner’s defense attorney attempts to have the initial motor vehicle stop suppressed. If the initial
motor vehicle stop is found to be improper would the subsequent discovery of bullets and gun excluded?
a.
No, because motor vehicle stops are not covered by the Fourth Amendment or the exclusionary rule.
b.
No, based upon the independent source doctrine, the gun and bullets would have been discovered
through independent simultaneous investigative actions.
c.
Yes, but only because the officers did not immediately Mirandize Bill.
d.
Yes, because motor vehicle stops are covered by the Fourth Amendment and the exclusionary rule.
Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine (or the Derivative Evidence Rule)
22. On what grounds could the defense seek to exclude Bill’s videotaped confession?
a.
Miranda
b.
affirmative defense
c.
writ of habeas corpus
d.
inevitable discovery
23. At trial, the defense seeks to have the drugs in the trunk suppressed, claiming that the warrantless search of
the defendant’s cell phone lead to the search of the trunk and discovery of the drugs. What options would the
prosecution have to counter the suppression of the evidence?
a.
None as there are exceptions to the fruit of a poisonous tree doctrine.
b.
The prosecution could counter the defense’s motion with the derivative evidence rule, claiming that
the drugs would have ultimately been discovered when police conduct the impound inventory of the
defendant’s car.
c.
The prosecution could counter the defense’s motion with the inevitable discovery rule, claiming that
the drugs would have ultimately been discovered when police conduct the impound inventory of the
defendant’s car.
d.
The prosecution could counter the defense’s motion with the signed Miranda waiver form.
Case 9.2
Police respond to a third party 911 call and arrive at the scene of domestic violence homicide. Police find the
victim underneath his pickup truck, apparently run over. On scene, the man’s wife, blurts out that she could not
take his physical abuse and drinking any more. She then says “I didn’t mean to hurt him I just wanted to get
away.” The wife has multiple new and old bruises on her body which she claims were from the husband
repeatedly beating her while threatening to kill her.
Witnesses report that they heard the two fighting and witnessed the husband trying to grab the wife as she ran
outside. They observed the wife get into the pickup truck and heard the husband screaming that he wouldn’t let
her go as he stood in front of the pickup. Witnesses report that the wife drove the truck over the husband and
then backed up. They further state that the wife called someone the phone and said “it’s done.” Witnesses also
tell police that the wife has been seeing another man on the side and that the other man had been with the wife
just an hour before the husband/victim had gotten home.
Police interview the wife, who claims that she dialed 911 but hung up the phone by accident, because she was in
a panic. Police ask the wife to show them her phone but she refuses. Police check with the dispatch center and
fine only one call and that was the one from the witness.
Police arrest the wife for the murder of her husband and transport her to police headquarters for processing. She
is searched incident to arrest and her phone is taken into evidence. Police also search the house for additional
evidence. While being transported to headquarters the wife changes her story several times claiming that her
husband was screaming that he was going to kill her. Her changing statements are recorded by the in car video
system.
24. At trial the defense attempts to suppress her initial on scene statements to police claiming she had not been
advised of her rights. Under what would the defense apply for the motion to suppress those statements?
a.
Miranda
b.
a suppression hearing
c.
writ of habeas corpus
d.
inevitable discovery rule
25. If police initially search the defendant’s phone without a search warrant can the police still introduce the
record of the phone calls made from the phone on the day of the murder?
a.
Yes, as there is no expectation of privacy in ones cell phone, so the police would not need a warrant
to review the contents or records.
b.
No, as the fourth amendment strictly prohibits warrantless search without exception.
c.
Under the Inevitable Discovery Rule, the evidence could be introduced at trial if the prosecution can
show that the evidence would have ultimately been obtained anyway through other proper
investigative procedures.
d.
No, as the police would have needed a wire-tap warrant to listen in on the conversation.
26. The police search the defendant’s phone is deemed illegal, but the conversation between the defendant and
her lover was caught on a legal wiretap of the lover’s phone as a result an independent investigation in his
involvement in drug distribution case. Can the police still introduce the record of the phone conversation
between the two on the day of the murder?
a.
No, under the Fruit of a Poisonous Tree Doctrine, the introduction of evidence from another
investigation is prohibited.
b.
No, as the Derivative Evidence Rule applies solely to evidence obtained directly from independent
sources.
c.
Yes, under the Independent Source Doctrine, if the evidence was obtained properly from a second
and independent source.
d.
No, as the accused was not the subject of the wiretap warrant and therefore any evidence obtained
should be excluded.
Case 9.3
Police investigate an arson of a commercial structure. The day after the fire is extinguished, police investigators
return to the property and retrieve evidence from the burned building. Police contact the security company that
monitored the crime scene and obtained alarm system records that demonstrate that the system was shut down
via the internal key pad just prior to the fire. Police also obtain surveillance videos from other commercial
businesses adjacent to the crime scene. Through their investigation the owner of the building is identified as a
prime suspect.
Police ask the building owner to come down to headquarters to follow up on any potential suspects he may
have. Once at police headquarters, the building owner is interviewed by detectives regarding the fire. What was
a friendly discussion suddenly turns adversarial with the detectives accusing him of starting the fire to collect
insurance. They both tell him to think about what he wants to say about the crime and leave him alone in a
locked interview room. While in the interview room the building owner texts an accomplice to check if he
properly disposed of incriminating evidence. The investigators come in and inform the defendant that no cell
phones are allowed in the interview room. They take the cell phone out of the room and view the texts on the
phone. The building owner ultimately confesses to the arson and is charged. Subsequent to the confession police
obtain a search warrant for the cell phone texts and records.
27. At trial the defense moves to suppress the evidence removed from crime scene by investigators the day after
the fire, because they failed to get a search warrant or consent. Under which rule would the defense make this
motion?
a.
Miranda
b.
affirmative defense
c.
fruit of the poisonous tree
d.
inevitable discovery
The Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine (or the Derivative Evidence Rule)
CEPC.GARD.16.9.4
28. Which constitutional amendment would prohibit detectives from looking through cell phone texts without
the owner’s consent?
a.
First Amendment
b.
Second Amendment
c.
Fifth Amendment
d.
Fourth Amendment
d
CEPC.GARD.16.9.4
29. Although it is clear that business owner is not free to go and is being accused of a crime by detectives, they
have not told him that he is under arrest. Which constitutional amendment governs the interrogation of the
business owner at police headquarters?
a.
First Amendment
b.
Second Amendment
c.
Fifth Amendment
d.
Fourth Amendment
CEPC.GARD.16.9.5
True / False
30. Police misconduct can result in the violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments’ Clauses of due
process.
a.
True
b.
False
True
The Exclusionary Rule (or the Rule of the Exclusion of Evidence)
CEPC.GARD.16.9.1
31. The Miranda rule does not provide safeguards before confessions or other incriminating statements have
been obtained
a.
True
b.
False
False
The Miranda Rule, Confessions, and the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine
CEPC.GARD.16.9.5
32. For most of U.S. history, there was no federal exclusionary rule.
a.
True
b.
False
True
The Exclusionary Rule (or the Rule of the Exclusion of Evidence)
CEPC.GARD.16.9.1
33. The exclusionary rule exacts a social cost when it is used to exclude relevant, reliable evidence.
a.
True
b.
False
True
The Exclusionary Rule (or the Rule of the Exclusion of Evidence)
CEPC.GARD.16.9.1
34. Evidence gathered from initial improper conduct is called “fruit of the poisonous tree”.
a.
True
b.
False
True
The Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine (or the Derivative Evidence Rule)
CEPC.GARD.16.9.4
35. Use of the exclusionary rule to exclude unreliable evidence could help protect innocent people from being
convicted.
a.
True
b.
False
True
The Exclusionary Rule (or the Rule of the Exclusion of Evidence)
CEPC.GARD.16.9.1
36. The fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine is also referred to as the derivative evidence rule.
a.
True
b.
False
True
The Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine (or the Derivative Evidence Rule)
CEPC.GARD.16.9.2
37. An example of the application of the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine is excluding a confession obtained
after an illegal search and seizure.
a.
True
b.
False
True
The Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine (or the Derivative Evidence Rule)
CEPC.GARD.16.9.2
38. There are no exceptions to the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine.
a.
True
b.
False
False
Exceptions to the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine
CEPC.GARD.16.9.3
39. If the police can show they would have found the evidence eventually by legal means, it may trigger the
independent source exception to the exclusionary rule.
a.
True
b.
False
False
Exceptions to the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine
CEPC.GARD.16.9.3
40. If the government can satisfy the attenuation of the taint doctrine, the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine
does not apply.
a.
True
b.
False
True
Exceptions to the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine
CEPC.GARD.16.9.3
41. In Mapp v. Ohio, the U.S. Supreme Court made the federal exclusionary rule binding on the states.
a.
True
b.
False
True
The Exclusionary Rule (or the Rule of the Exclusion of Evidence)
CEPC.GARD.16.9.1
42. In the Fahy v. Connecticut case, the court noted that there was no prejudicial effect of erroneously admitted
evidence.
a.
True
b.
False
False
The Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine (or the Derivative Evidence Rule)
CEPC.GARD.16.9.2
43. Evidence obtained illegally by wiretapping or electronic eavesdropping is not subject to the exclusionary
rule.
a.
True
b.
False
False
The Miranda Rule, Confessions, and the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine
CEPC.GARD.16.9.4
44. In Wong Sun v. U.S., the Supreme Court concluded that the taint had been dissipated over the period of
several days and the confession was admissible.
a.
True
b.
False
True
Exceptions to the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine
CEPC.GARD.16.9.6
45. The inevitable discovery rule was adopted in Nix v. Williams.
a.
True
b.
False
True
Exceptions to the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine
CEPC.GARD.16.9.4
46. The exclusionary rule can apply to evidence obtained in violation of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel.
a.
True
b.
False
True
The Miranda Rule, Confessions, and the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine
CEPC.GARD.16.9.6
47. If the improper police conduct is a failure to give a Miranda warning, the courts always apply the poisonous
tree doctrine and suppress evidence obtained.
a.
True
b.
False
False
The Miranda Rule, Confessions, and the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine
CEPC.GARD.16.9.5
48. The fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine does not apply to physical evidence.
a.
True
b.
False
False
CEPC.GARD.16.9.4
49. If a state has a state-created exclusionary rule, the federal exclusionary rule does not apply.
a.
True
b.
False
False
CEPC.GARD.16.9.1
Completion
50. The primary purpose of the exclusionary rule is to deter _____ misconduct.
51. In _____ v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court described the scope of the exclusionary rule and its
application to indirect evidence.
52. In _____ v. Ohio, the U.S. Supreme Court made the federal exclusionary rule binding on the states.
53. The fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine is also known as the _____ evidence rule.
54. Violations of the _____ Amendment privilege against self-incrimination can result in exclusion of the
confession.
55. Unreasonable searches and seizures that violate the _____ Amendment can trigger the federal exclusionary
rule.
56. The U.S. Supreme Court has refused to apply the derivative evidence rule to physical evidence obtained
after obtaining a confession in violation of _____ v. Arizona.
57. One of the exceptions to the exclusionary rule and fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine is the _____ source
doctrine.
58. One of the exceptions to the exclusionary rule and fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine is the _____discovery
rule.
59. In ______ v. U.S., the Supreme Court held attenuation was an exception to the fruit of the poisonous tree
doctrine.
60. The U.S. Supreme Court has concluded that the inevitable discovery exception has the same basic
justification as the independent _____ rule.
61. A search conducted pursuant to an invalid search _____ may be subject to the exclusionary rule.
62. In Hudson v. Michigan, the court stated that the exclusionary rule is most appropriate in cases of _____
searches.
63. Courts have had conflicting opinions about the application of the _____ doctrine when improper police
conduct consists of the failure to give the Miranda warning.
64. Knock-and talk sessions can become _____, if the questioning changes from consensual to interrogation,
and may result in constitutional violations.
Essay
65. Discuss the arguments for and against the exclusionary rule. Be sure to provide examples. Explain your
position on the exclusionary rule.
66. Define and discuss three exceptions to the exclusionary rule and/or fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine. Be
sure to provide examples.
67. What did the U.S. Supreme Court hold in U.S. v. Patane (2004)? What was the Court’s rationale? Explain
why you agree or disagree with this decision.
68. What is the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine? Why do you think it is necessary to have such a rule?
69. The U.S. Supreme has often held that “Mere police questioning does not constitute a seizure”, Florida v.
Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 434 (1991), whether or not the officer doing the questioning has any basis for suspecting
an individual of criminal activity. If the circumstances surrounding the knock-and-talk are such that the person
does not feel free to leave and stop answering questions, the questioning becomes “custodial” and the person is
“seized” under the Fourth Amendment. With that noted, what factors do you think should be recognized as
factors that should be taken into consideration when judging whether a person should reasonably consider
him/herself in “custody”? Explain your responses.
70. Where police misconduct violates an individual right protected by the U.S. Constitution, the applicability of
an exclusionary rule (and a court’s ability to change the rule) can depend on the constitutional right violated.
Do you feel that evidence that would be omitted due to such a violation be excluded even if the evidence would
show clear guilt or innocence? Why or why not?
71. The “attenuation” doctrine requires a showing that the time between the improper police conduct and the
subsequently discovered evidence was sufficiently lengthy to dissipate the “taint” of the illegal conduct. What
do you feel is a sufficient length of time for this to be appropriate? Do you believe that there should be a
universal time period that would apply to all situations? Why or why not?
72. Review the Nix v. Williams case and respond to the following: do you feel that the Supreme Court made the
correct assumption in stating that the searchers probably would have found the deceased girl’s body even
without the information provided by Williams? If the Supreme Court had ruled that the subsequent discovery
of the body and related evidence was fruit of the poisonous tree would justice have been served? Why or why
not?