1. Explain the significance of Weeks v. United States, Wolf v. Colorado, Elkins v. United States, and Mapp v. Ohio.
    
2. List out and summarize the arguments for and against the exclusionary rule.
    
3. Describe the procedure for invoking the exclusionary rule and the significance of the standing doctrine.
    
4. Discuss these exceptions of the exclusionary rule: collateral proceedings, attenuation, good faith, independent source, inevitable discovery, and impeachment.

SUMMARY: In 1914, in Weeks v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that evidence seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment is to be excluded from evidence in federal prosecutions. Thirty-five years later, in Wolf v. Colorado, the Court held that the requirements of the Fourth Amendment are incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment and are applicable to proceedings in state and local courts. In 1961, in Mapp v. Ohio, the Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule also applied to prosecutions in state courts. The Court explained that the exclusionary rule is “part and parcel” of the Fourth Amendment, provides a deterrent to police disregard for the Fourth Amendment, and protects the integrity of the judicial process by excluding tainted evidence from trial. These twin goals, according to the majority of the justices on the Court at that time, could not be accomplished through civil remedies, criminal prosecution, or disciplinary proceedings. Subsequently, in a series of judgments, the Court shifted its position and ruled that the exclusionary rule is a “judge-made” remedy that is not required by the Fourth Amendment, whose sole purpose is to deter unreasonable searches and seizures.

The typical avenue for challenging the reasonableness of a search and seizure is the filing of a pretrial motion to suppress. Most states and the federal courts place the burden of proof on the defendant when the search or seizure is based on a warrant. The burden is reversed and is placed on the government when the police act without a warrant. The legal test to be applied for standing to file a motion to suppress an alleged violation of the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is whether an individual has a subjective and reasonable expectation of privacy in the area that was searched. The burden of proof for demonstrating standing customarily is placed on the defendant.

The Supreme Court has created a number of exceptions to the exclusionary rule in those instances in which the Court has concluded that the limited deterrent value of excluding the evidence is outweighed by the costs of excluding the evidence from the trial. In other words, in these cases, the Court found that there was “too much pain for too little gain.” These exceptions are as follows:

• Collateral proceedings. The evidence is admissible in criminal proceedings that are not part of the formal trial as well as in certain civil proceedings.
• Attenuation. There is a weak connection between the unlawful search and the seizure of the evidence.
• Good faith. The police acted in an objectively reasonable fashion in seizing the evidence.
• Independent source. The evidence was also discovered through lawful means that are separate and distinct from the unlawful seizure of the evidence.
• Inevitable discovery. The evidence eventually would have been lawfully discovered.
• Impeachment. Unlawfully seized items may be introduced on cross-examination to attack the defendant’s credibility.