Texas-Book-Gun Law Armed And Educated - Flipbook - Page 41
proceedings and serves to protect persons in all settings in which
their freedom of action is curtailed in any significant way from being
compelled to incriminate themselves.” The Court concluded that,
“the prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or
inculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant
unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective
to secure the privilege against self-incrimination. By custodial
interrogation, we mean questioning initiated by law enforcement
officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise
deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way.” The result
of this holding is the “Miranda Warning” we are familiar with today.
When a suspect is subjected to a custodial interrogation by law
enforcement officers, the resulting statements are not admissible
unless the suspect first knowingly waived his or her rights.
IX. WHAT HAPPENS IF THE POLICE VIOLATE MY RIGHTS?
A. Exclusionary rule
What can you do when the government has overstepped its limits
and violated your Fourth or Fifth Amendment rights? If a person
is found to be in possession of criminal evidence or contraband,
and they are successful in persuading a judge that the police
officer’s search, seizure, or interrogation was unconstitutional,
their recourse is found in a legal principle called the exclusionary
rule. The exclusionary rule states that illegally obtained evidence is
“fruit of the poisonous tree” and cannot be used as evidence in the
criminal trial of the person, even if this results in a guilty person
going free. The exclusionary rule exists at both the federal level
and the state level.
B. The federal exclusionary rule
There are a few judicially recognized exceptions to the
exclusionary rule where the “illegally obtained” evidence may still
30 | CHAPTER TWO
