You should definitely press charges!
This seems like kind of a loophole in the law if the evidence is allowed, though I can understand the argument behind both sides.
Is there any way to see how courts have ruled on this question?
Sure. You could read Alderman v. US, 394 US 165 (1969). Briefly, after a group of ne’er-do-wells was convictedfor transmitting murderous threats in interstate commerce, they discovered that one of their number’s place of business had been subjected to electronic surveillance – bugging - not authorized by any warrant. They sought to have their convictions overturned under the theory that the government’s information about thier plot came from the illegal wiretap.
The court ruled that only the person whose business had been bugged had any standing to complain about Fourth Amendment violations; others did not:
Sometimes I just really do not follow the reasoning in the law.
It seems obvious to me that people tossed in jail by virtue of someone breaking the law to do so ARE the very people who had their rights violated. They are in jail and have no standing? The notion that it is ok to violate the law to gain evidence as long as it is one step removed from the person you are seeking to toss in jail is anathema to the concept of the rule of law. Yet here we are with the law saying it is just peachy to do that.
This ought to be absurdly simple. Evidence illegally obtained cannot be used in court. Period.
So says my worldview anyway. 
Thanks. That story lacks the recursive nature of the OP, doesn’t it?
Yes. I’m not aware of any case law on point for that twist.
Does that twist alter things in a fundamental way?
I guess one of the things I find troublesome about this is the lack of downside for the illegal search. Getting usable evidence from an illegal search, no matter who the evidence implicates, seems to render the illegality pretty shallow.
Well the idea is that they really aren’t being treated “unfairly.” They committed the crime, and no rights of their’s were violated in the gathering of the evidence. The person whose rights were violated still has the possibility of redress, in the form of a lawsuit against the government. There is a logic to it, just not one with which I agree.
I’m pretty much with you here, but not because of a view that the rights of the actual incarcerated person have necessaruly been violated. My problem is that it incentivizes authorities to commit illegal searches if that evidence can be used against anyone.
I can’t find any case that suggests it does, and based on the extremely clear line of reasoning from Alderman and its progeny, I’m pretty confident that if a case like that did arise, it would not result in any dramatic changes.
What those who don’t understand the non-exclusion in the OP are missing is the actual language of the 4th amendment, and how it leads to the exclusionary rule. The 4th reads, in part: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…”; it goes back to English common law, and a case called Entick v. Carrington. Back then, I guess there was no exclusionary rule, and the case was a civil suit by the offended party. I assume the remedy was in the form of monetary damages.
In the US, it came to pass that, for violations of the right to be secure in one’s house, excluding the evidence gathered thereby was a more just remedy than money after the fact. Regardless of remedy, however, the right remains a personal one, and a man can no more seek exclusion for a violation of another man’s rights than I can sue, say, Bricker, for stealing another man’s money.
These kinds of threads always depress me. The idea that the exclusionary rule should serve not just those who’s rights were actually violated, but also to anyone who is caught subsequently is, to my mind, a preposterous idea that focuses not on the Constitution or the 4th Amendment, but more on the “let’s make the cops pay as much as possible for their actions”. Except, of course, it’s not actually the cops who are paying, it’s the public who now would have even more crime unpunished. The idea that the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine should be expanded even further to include pretty much anything ever found would be a bad thing.
As to the factual stuff, the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine doesn’t generally extend to the testimony of co-defendants, even if they were discovered only as a result of illegal police conduct.
“Generally, courts have held that the testimony of a witness whose identity was discovered as a result of an illegal arrest is not inadmissible as the fruit of the poisonous tree.”
Some cases:
People v. Bell, 105 Ill.App.3d 208, 434 N.E.2d 35 Ill.App., 1982.
United States v. Beasley, 485 F.2d 60 (10th Cir. Okla. 1973),
Most of these cases United States v. Crews, 445 U.S. 463 (1980), as the Supreme Court case that made the difference. In that case, the defendant tried to suppress the in court identification by the victim because the defendant had been arrested without probable cause. The court refused to extend the FOTPT doctrine that far.
The Fourth Amendment is a shield against governmental action. It shouldn’t be a sword to be wielded by people whose rights were not violated.
As an aside, Bricker, I’ve always wondered how a textualist/former public defender, feels about the exclusionary rule. Surely it isn’t in the text of the Constitution, and I’ve seen no indication that it was ever intended when the 4th Amendment was drafted. I always kinda expected you to take a anti-exclusionary rule stance (at least as created by the judiciary).
Well, given that the purpose of the rule as repeatedly stated is to disincentivize police misconduct, it is hardly preposterous to argue that it doesn’t matter whose rights have been violated, provided rights have been violated.
And if you note in the hypo the individual’s own rights were indeed violated by an illegal search.
I couldn’t agree more. It seems as if I would have a reasonable expectation that the cops wouldn’t illegally search my neighbor’s home, but if they do anyways and some illegal stuff of mine is found there, then I have no redress for the violation?
Why? Because I wasn’t harmed? Of course I was harmed, I am in jail now!
Now, if my neighbor turns me in, then that’s his right and I would have been foolish to trust him, but I should be able to rely that he won’t be subject to an illegal search as that is a 4th amendment violation.
It seems as if it could happen, as was alluded to earlier, that if the cops know that A and B conspired to commit a crime, they just toss both of their homes and cars without a warrant and just use the evidence found against the other, and press each other for confessions.
IANAL, by any means, but it seems that there is a distinction. I don’t think anyone is arguing that B has any reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to A’s house, so the fruits of the search could certainly be used to arrest B. But the recursive nature of coming back and arresting A does seem to change things.
As you pointed out, if A had kept the evidence in a storage locker, this would all fall under FOTPT. But what if A didn’t have access to a storage locker and so instead told B to hold on to the incriminating evidence for him? By giving it to his friend B, instead of an impersonal business, does he somehow give up his expectation of privacy?
This is exactly the mindset I was talking about. Instead of looking at the fact you were doing something illegal that was discovered without ever violating YOUR rights, you focus instead on “The police screwed up! I get a freebie!!”
Another great example. It’s not the fact that you did something illegal that is the reason you’re in jail, it’s because the police did something bad that didn’t even violate your rights.
Why should you be able to rely on that? Again, the 4th amendment isn’t a “get out of illegal action” card.
I would assume most of us here aren’t actually benefiting from the lack of these searches. But if illegal searches end up benefiting law-enforcement, what is there to discourage them?
I’m a fan of the result but not the process that got us there. And let’s face it – the Republic survied without turning into a police state for quite a few years before Mapp v. Ohio.
But I think it’s a very wise prophylactic rule, and although I don’t think it’s of constitutional dimension, so much of our current case law rests on it that I would be loathe now to upset the applecart.
You think that they aren’t violating your rights just because your property was in someone else’s house? You feel as if you give up any property interest because it is not physically in a location controlled by you?
I feel that it is a violation of my rights because I relied on a police department to abide by the 4th amendment when I placed (incriminating evidence, embarrassing diary, etc.) in the neighbor’s house.
Remember, the analysis isn’t whether you were harmed or whether you had a property interest, but whether you had a reasonable expectation of privacy. Typically, in someone else’s house you don’t, but there are always exceptions.
So, with this Alderman v. US example, let me see if I’ve got this right:
I’m a cop. I’d like to bust Frank Gotti on a racketeering charge. I illegally tap his phone. The results of the illegal wiretap yield incriminating evidence on John Gambino. So, I’ve got something to use to put John Gambino away; good for me. But I still want to get Frank Gotti.
So I put an illegal tap on John Gambino’s phone, and sure enough, the results of this illegal wiretap yield incriminating evidence on Frank Gotti!
I testify to the court in the the case of The People v. John Gambino that I picked up the evidence against the defendant in the course of an illegal wiretap on Frank Gotti’s line.
And in the unrelated trial of The People v. Frank Gotti, I testify that I obtained the evidence against the defendant in the course of an illegal wiretap on John Gambino’s line.
Does Alderman v. US keep me in the clear?
I don’t understand this. Why shouldn’t I have a reasonable expectation of privacy when I’m in someone’s private residence?