Exceptions of the exclusionary rule the inevitability doctrine

Court of Appeals of Alaska. Rehearing Denied December 23,

Exceptions of the exclusionary rule the inevitability doctrine

United States District Court, D. Defendant Michael Rullo was arrested in East Boston, Massachusetts on November 8, and indicted on November 16, for possession and distribution of cocaine in violation of 21 U.

Defendant moved to suppress all statements made by him at the time of his arrest and all evidence found as a result of those statements. In particular, defendant wishes to suppress a handgun he disposed of shortly before his arrest and his statements which allegedly led the police to discover the handgun.

Defendant asserts the statements were made involuntarily and in violation of his Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights to due process, freedom from self-incrimination and freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures.

The court held four days of evidentiary hearings on the motion to suppress the "Suppression Hearing". The court heard testimony from Keith Gurry, who is a resident of East Boston and eyewitness to many of the events which occurred on November 8,the defendant, and the following members of the Boston Drug Task Force the "Task Force": For the reasons stated below, the court finds that defendant's statements must be suppressed as improperly obtained in violation of his Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights and that the handgun which was found as a result of those statements must also be suppressed.

More specifically, with regard to the handgun, the court finds that the independent source exception to the exclusionary rule does not apply in the instant case and that application of the inevitable discovery exception to the exclusionary rule would be inappropriate because its use here would significantly weaken Fourth and Fifth Amendment protections and abet other police misconduct.

Turavani got out of Rullo's car and approached a red Corvette occupied by Troopers Glasheen and Craven, who were operating undercover as part of a newly established Boston Drug Task Force composed of federal, state and local law enforcement officials. Rullo stayed in his car.

Turavani attempted to make a sale of cocaine to the troopers. The buy had been set up earlier with the help of a confidential informant, who had notified the officers that either Turavani or his companion would be armed.

Several other members of the Task Force were in the area surveilling the buy. Up to this time, none of the Task Force members had observed Rullo with Turavani or had otherwise noted his presence in the area.

However, as Turavani fled, Agents Hansen and Hersey, who were stationed in the rear of the Burger King parking lot, saw Rullo walking rapidly across the parking lot in the direction of Saratoga Street.

The agents, who were dressed in civilian clothes, requested that Rullo stop. Rullo refused to comply and ran in the direction of Saratoga Street. As he ran, Rullo appeared to keep his right hand either in the waistband of his sweatpants or in his right jacket pocket.

Hansen and Hersey chased him with guns drawn, repeatedly yelling at Rullo to stop. The agents were approximately 50 feet behind Rullo at this time. Glasheen followed another 40 to 50 feet further back. After continuing the chase for a minute or so, Hansen believed he saw defendant jump the fence around a house at the corner of Westbrook and Saratoga Streets and go behind a bush in the house's yard.

Exceptions of the exclusionary rule the inevitability doctrine

The court finds that Rullo actually turned the corner. Hansen and Hersey took cover behind a car ten feet from the corner.

Hansen heard what he thought were two nearly-simultaneous gunshots, but did not see defendant fire a weapon. Rullo states that he did not fire at the agents, but simply threw the gun away.

Rullo states, and the court believes, that the gun discharged once as it hit the ground and that the second shot Hansen believed he heard was merely an echo of the accidental firing. At this point, Glasheen caught up with Hansen and Hersey.

The officers called for backup and initiated a search for Rullo. Over the course of the next 15 minutes, between 50 and 75 law enforcement officers, in uniform or plain clothes, flooded the area.

The agents who had been chasing Turavani heard about the alleged shooting and all made their way to Saratoga Street. Several dozen civilians were on the street watching. Some members of the media were also present. After throwing the gun away, Rullo had run into the backyard of a house and hidden for ten to fifteen minutes.

As he started to return to the Burger King via Saratoga Street, Rullo saw the police officers searching for him. He subsequently hid on the raised front porch of a house five buildings down Saratoga Street from the corner of Saratoga and Westbrook.Because the State failed to produce sufficient evidence of the reasonableness of the officer's actions and the inevitability of the discovery, we reverse.

under the inevitable discovery doctrine. 76 Wn. App. at would not necessarily serve the deterrence function of the exclusionary rule. See Richman, 85 Wn. App. at From a practical. At us consider again the exclusionary rule for evidence gained as a result of an illegal search.

In such a circumstance, the apparent lack of convergence is between the means employed (the illegal search) and the end being sought (the conviction of the guilty). THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE I & II Jack Wade Nowlin Jessie D.

Puckett, Jr., Lecturer in Law True Inevitability III.

Discover the world's research The Court reiterated its enduring view that the Miranda warnings are constitutionally grounded in Dickerson v. United States, S.
2 editions of this work Nonetheless exclusion of such evidence occurs relatively frequently in the United States and, over the past several decades, has become more prevalent in a number of other countries as well. At bottom, these various exclusion regimes rely on one of three rationales:

THE IMPEACHMENT EXCEPTION TO THE Significance of Shift to Deterrence Policy: Creation of Exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule D. WHERE THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE DOES NOT APPLY 1.

Determination of (Non . The Inevitable Discovery Doctrine and the Exclusionary Rule. When evidence is obtained in violation of Article I, Sec. 7 of the Hawai'i Constitution, it is generally excluded from use by the prosecution at trial. Full-text Court Opinions The latest Michigan Court opinions summarized with links to the full text court opinions.

doctrine (note case) Coolidge lausannecongress2018.coms lausannecongress2018.comes to the states by the 14th Amendment. and in the course of the search come across some other article of incriminating character 1 Where the initial intrusion that brings the police with in plain view of such an article is supported.

(time gap).Exceptions to the exclusionary rule Murray v.

98 Wn. App. , STATE v. REYES