Introduction
This essay reviews the various aspects of evidence gathering and applies them to the exclusionary rule and the fruit of the poisoned tree. The primary purpose of the paper is to discuss possible instances that officers can consider to ensure the quality of the evidence gathered in the Ellis’ “Who did it?” case. It shows just how complex an investigation can become should the officers acquire a taste for unreasonable and illegal means of collecting information. Therefore, the following is an assessment of these elements.
The Exclusionary Rule and Fruit of the Poisonous Tree
The exclusionary rule disallows the federal system from using evidence collected in violation of the Constitution. According to Oaks (1970), the doctrine applies to any evidence gained from illegal and unreasonable search and seizure processes. Such processes act in violation of the Fourth Amendment, improper elicitation of self-incriminatory statements that violates the Fifth Amendment, as well as overlooks the victim’s right to counsel. The rule implies that officers could have obtained the evidence by means outlawed by statute, court rules, and the Constitution. The U.S Supreme Court enforces the rule in criminal proceedings as a primary technique in protecting individual constitutional rights. Given such a situation, the exclusionary rule’s importance compares to the importance of imprisonment when enforcing various criminal laws (Oaks, 1970).
The Fruit of the Poisonous Tree is a continuation of the Exclusionary Rule. According to the LII (2015), the doctrine notes that judges must consider as inadmissible any evidence collected with additional help from illegal and unreasonable processes. For instance, an illegal interrogation would lead to the discovery of physical evidence, hence inadmissible. The interrogation is unreasonable because of the exclusionary rule, and the evidence is inadmissible because it is the result of an unreasonable process. This doctrine, however, is subject to three primary exceptions. First, the evidence remains important if it comes from an independent source. Second, it remains crucial if its existence is certain. Finally, it qualifies for court processes if there exists a dilution between the illegal activity and evidence discovery (LII, 2015).
Unlike the vice versa, the fruit of the poisonous tree champions the exclusionary rule. That is, it is a form of subsequent evidence as part of the exclusionary process. Under the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine, the justice system could exclude evidence seized in Constitutional violation and derived through illegal search unless the three exceptions mentioned above apply. For instance, an officer arrested a defendant, say El Chapo, for drug peddling who later confessed to the crime. If the local court declared the arrest unconstitutional, it would deem the confession tainted thus inadmissible on the drug crime charge (LII, 2015; Oaks, 1970).
The Doctrines and Ellis’ Case
Both doctrines do not directly apply to the evidence recovered at the Ellis’ house as follows. In this instance, it triggers the exception that the evidence collected remains crucial to the case because of its certain existence and the nature of the situation. As stated above, the two doctrines coexist first through the activation of the exclusionary rule. Thus, the judge should consider the evidence as gathered using reasonable processes. If any, say Ellis or William confesses to the crime, the confession would be admissible physical evidence because the arrest that follows would be constitutional (Oaks, 1970).
Illegal Searches and Civil Liability
Illegal searches and seizure by cops offer affected individuals the legal right to sue for damages. The reason for such a liability is that the officers’ actions violate the Fourth Amendment. According to Free Advice (2015), the Constitution protects Americans from illegal search and seizure practices. It further states that all citizens have a right to feel secure in their private spaces against illegal and unreasonable searches. The officers can only search and seize private homes upon probable causes and in the presence of a valid warrant. If officers search and seize objects without a warrant, they would have violated the Amendment and the evidence viewed as inadmissible during a trial (Free Advice, 2015).
However, Free Advice (2015) agrees that not every illegal search process provides ground for evidence suppression and damage claims. One side of this argument would see the justice system considering the process constitutional if the officers acted in a responsible manner and without malice. This case applies even if they wrongfully thought that the judge had issued a search warrant. The other side of sees the court offering the victim a right to ask for damages if they believe that officers conducted an illegal search irresponsibly and with malice. Here, the law demands that victims receive either monetary damages or legal fee settlements. The compensation act as a form of repayment for the damage incurred by the individual and property as a result of the search and seizure (Free Advice, 2015).
How to Collect Admissible Evidence
Most likely, I would act as a detective tasked with interviewing Mrs. Ellis, pursuing leads, and connecting information from the material present at the scene. I would engage the crime scene investigators to search and collect the evidence from this scene. The team would consist of photographers and collection personnel. These individuals are professionals in the collection of various kinds of evidence such as DNA, trace evidence, and latent prints. Now, the NFSTC asserts that there is numerous evidence that an officer can collect at this scene that is valuable for any investigation. Some of them include blood and body fluids, hair, fingerprints and footprints, footwear, fibers, cell phone records, and tools and tool mark evidence (NFSTC, 2015).
Of course, evidence deemed for collection varies across crime scenes. In the Ellis’ household case, therefore, it would be vital for the responding officer to follow the following steps. These steps ensure that other team members and suspects do not destroy, damage, and protect the admissibility of the evidence. First, inform Mrs. Ellis of the collection process as an important part of the investigation. Second, fence off the scene to restrict unauthorized entry to a minimum. Third, photograph and document the physical nature of the evidence. Fourth, collect trace material as well as low-level material. Furthermore, collect any other items that would contain further biological evidence. Lastly, locate, dust for, and collect fingerprints (NFSTC, 2015).
The final step would involve the recording and preservation of evidence. This step includes an inventory log aimed at accounting for all evidence collected from the scene. For instance, if the team manages to collect the knife, it would be vital to have an entry of its distinctive features as seen at the scene and placing it in an air-tight evidence bag for further analysis. This inventory establishes the items that follow the case throughout its lifetime (NFSTC, 2015).
Conclusion
The above discussion follows the steps procured in the search and seizure of evidence. It uses the exclusionary rule and the fruit of the poisoned tree as primary doctrines that apply to crime scene investigations. The doctrines enable the justice system to exclude incriminating evidence from trials upon proof that officers collected it using ways that contravened the Constitutional requirements. They, therefore, allow defendants to challenge the evidence as well as act as guides for officers to follow when responding to reported crimes. In conclusion, the discussion finds that both instances reduce chances of error in criminal procedures.
References
Free Advice . (2015). Illegal Search and Seizure: 4th Amendment Violations May Warrant Money Damages. Retrieved from Free Advice Web site: http://law.freeadvice.com/government_law/civil_rights_law_ada/illegal-search-damages.htm
LII. (2015). Fruit of the Poisonous Tree. Retrieved from The Cornell Univesity Legal Information Institute: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree
NFSTC. (2015). A Simplified Guide To Crime Scene Investigation. Retrieved from National Forensic Science Technology Center: http://www.crime-scene-investigator.net/simplified-guide-to-crime-scene-investigation.html
Oaks, D. H. (1970). Studying the Exclusionary Rule in Search and Seizure . Retrieved from NCJRS Web site: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/Digitization/203NCJRS.pdf
