Exam 10: Remedies for Constitutional Violations I: the Exclusionary Rule and Entrapment

The__________________justification stems from an ancient legal saying,"There's no right without a remedy."

The ethical exception says that illegally obtained evidence can come into court if the poisonous connection between illegal police actions and the evidence they got illegally from their actions weakens enough.

What is another term used to describe probative evidence,or evidence that proves (or helps to prove)defendants committed the crimes they are charged with?

Bad evidence is the term used to describe probative evidence,or evidence that proves (or helps to prove)defendants committed the crimes they are charged with.

The_________exception to the exclusionary rule is based on an objective test of whether a well- trained officer would have known his or her actions were illegal under the circumstances.

According to the Supreme Court in Mapp v.Ohio,leaving the Fourth Amendment's protection from illegal searches and seizures to solutions other than the exclusionary rule had been effective.

Which doctrine holds that illegally seized evidence can be introduced a trial if the officials' law breaking behavior did not cause the seizure of the evidence?

In Herring v.U.S.(2009)the court held that if an officer makes an arrest,reasonably (but wrongly)believing there's an outstanding arrest warrant against the suspect,the arrest violates the Fourth Amendment but evidence obtained during a search incident to the unlawful arrest is admissible in court.

The dissent in Herring v.U.S.(2009)argued that the exclusionary rule should apply to a search conducted pursuant to an arrest warrant that was later discovered to have been recalled months earlier because:

Weeks v.U.S.gave birth to the_________in 1914.

The Supreme Court has specifically rejected the rationale that the exclusionary rule is a constitutional right.

According to the Supreme Court,the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule:

According to the dissent in Mapp v.Ohio (1961):

The deterrence rationale for the exclusionary rule is:

With respect to the exclusionary rule,the Constitution specifically includes it in the Fourth Amendment.

The exception to the exclusionary rule which allows the admission of evidence if the police reasonably and honestly relied on a search warrant valid on its face but defective in fact is the exception.

The justification that excluding evidence obtained in violation of the Constitution prevents illegal law enforcement conduct is called the deterrence justification.

U.S.v.Moscatiello (1985)involved police use of plain view at a physical location where they had no right to be (a warehouse).Although they observed contraband in the form of marijuana,they maintained surveillance and secured a warrant without using the drug observations as a part of their probable cause.This decision created what exception to the exclusionary rule?

The exclusionary rule does not prevent prosecutors from using illegally seized evidence to impeach defendants' testimony.

The Supreme Court has held that the key inquiry for the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule is the officer's honest,subjective belief in the legality of his or her actions.