Click on the case titles to link to the full case decision.
Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961)-The US Supreme Court applied the "exclusionary rule" to the states. Any evidence illegally obtained by the government cannot be used in court against the accused.
Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293 (1967)-Though the practice of showing suspects singly for purposes of identification has been widely condemned, a violation of due process of law in the conduct of a confrontation depends on the totality of the surrounding circumstances. There was no due process denial in the confrontation here, since Mrs. Behrendt [victim] was the only person who could exonerate the suspect; she could not go to the police station for the usual lineup, and there was no way of knowing how long she would live.
Foster v. California, 394 U.S. 440 (1969)- The police in this case had the defendant stand in a lineup where he was several inches taller than the others. The witness was allowed to talk to him away from the lineup. The defendant was made to stand in another lineup at a later time for the same witness. The suggestive elements in the repeated confrontations the police arranged between the manager and petitioner so undermined the reliability of the eyewitness identification as to violate due process.
United States v. Ash, 413 U.S. 300 (1973)-The Sixth Amendment does not grant an accused the right to have counsel present when the Government conducts a post-indictment photographic display, containing a picture of the accused, for the purpose of allowing a witness to attempt an identification of the offender.
Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 (1977)-The admissibility of a single photo identification is not automatically denied, but is based on the totality of the circumstances. In this case, it was a trained police officer. He stood two feet from the defendant and observed him for minutes. He accurately described him. He positively identified him in a photo two days later. The court further added that the use of a photo array would have enhanced the force of the identification at trial, and would have avoided the risk that the evidence would be excluded as unreliable.
Herring v. US, 000 U.S. 07–513 (2009)(.pdf)-Police arrested Herring on a warrant. A search incident to arrest revealed drugs and a gun. After the arrest the police found out the warrant was recalled months earlier, but the information was not updated in the computer. Herring filed to dismiss the evidence under the exclusionary rule. The Court ruled that the evidence was admissible. When police mistakes leading to an unlawful search are the result of isolated negligence attenuated from the search, rather than systemic error or reckless disregard of constitutional requirements, the exclusionary rule does not apply. In this case, the officers were unaware of the mistake and the mistake was not a common occurrence.