exclusionary rule in Mississippi

2026The exclusionary rule also “prohibits ‘testimony concerning knowledge acquired during an unlawful search.’” Marshall v. State, 584 So. 2d 437, 438 (Miss. 1991) (quoting Murray v. United States, 487 U.S. 533, 536 (1988)).

2026“The ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’ doctrine” is part of “the exclusionary rule[, which] ‘prohibits introduction into evidence of tangible materials’” that were unlawfully obtained as well as “testimony concerning knowledge acquired during an unlawful search.” Green v. State, 344 So. 3d 854 , 857 (¶12) (Miss. 2022) (quoting Marshall v. State, 584 So. 2d 437, 438 (Miss. 1991); Murray v. United States, 487 U.S. 533, 536 (1988)).

2026As such, “the exclusionary rule will apply [only] if the ‘warrant [was] based on an affidavit so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render official belief in its existence entirely unreasonable.’” Id. at *8 (¶27) (quoting White, 842 So. 2d at 572 (¶21)) (emphasis added by Jackson).

2023“The exclusionary rule . . . does not apply automatically, as even a search pursuant to an invalid search warrant may be found to be reasonable under the good-faith exception.” Id. (citing White v. State, 842 So. 2d 565, 571 (Miss. 2003); United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 , 922- 23 (1984)).

2011“A search made without warrant and not incident to a lawful arrest is not illegal per se, but if the fruits of the search are to withstand the exclusionary rule, the search must have been predicated on probable cause.” McDuff v. State, 763 So.2d 850, 854 (Miss.2000) (quoting Hailes v. State, 268 So.2d 345, 346 (Miss.1972)).

2009This Court has ruled that “[a] search made without a warrant and not incident to a lawful arrest is not illegal per se, but if the fruits of the search are to withstand the exclusionary rule, the search must have been predicated on probable cause.” Hailes v. State, 268 So.2d 345, 346 (Miss.1972).

2026The exclusionary rule “prohibits ‘introduction into evidence of tangible materials seized during an unlawful search.’” Id. (quoting Murray v. United States, 487 U.S. 533, 536 (1998)).

2026The exclusionary rule also “prohibits ‘testimony concerning knowledge acquired during an unlawful search.’” Marshall v. State, 584 So. 2d 437, 438 (Miss. 1991) (quoting Murray v. United States, 487 U.S. 533, 536 (1988)).

2020Finally, our supreme court has held that “to trigger the exclusionary rule, police conduct must be sufficiently deliberate that exclusion can meaningfully deter it, and sufficiently culpable that such deterrence is worth the price paid by the justice system.” Delker v. State, 50 So. 3d 300, 303 (¶12) (Miss. 2010) (quoting Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135, 143 (2009)).

2020Continuing, the supreme court explained, “[a]s laid out in our cases, the exclusionary rule serves to deter deliberate, reckless, or grossly negligent conduct, or in 14 some circumstances recurring or systemic negligence.” Id.

2023“The exclusionary rule . . . does not apply automatically, as even a search pursuant to an invalid search warrant may be found to be reasonable under the good-faith exception.” Id. (citing White v. State, 842 So. 2d 565, 571 (Miss. 2003); United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 , 922- 23 (1984)).

2022A number of other courts have similarly held that the government 15 In United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 922-23 (1984), the United States Supreme Court held that the exclusionary rule does not apply when an officer conducts a search in an objectively reasonable (i.e., “good faith”) reliance on a facially valid search warrant issued by a neutral magistrate, even if the warrant is later found to be invalid.

2015Marshall v. State, 584 So.2d 437, 438 (Miss.1991) (citing Murray v. United States, 487 U.S. 533, 536 , 108 S.Ct. 2529 , 101 L.Ed.2d 472 (1988)); Powell v. State, 824 So.2d 661, 667 (¶27) (Miss.Ct.App.2002).

2015Marshall v. State, 584 So.2d 437, 438 (Miss.1991) (citing Murray v. United States, 487 U.S. 533, 536 , 108 S.Ct. 2529 , 101 L.Ed.2d 472 (1988)); Powell v. State, 824 So.2d 661, 667 (¶ 27) (Miss.Ct.App.2002). 6 .

2018"The exclusionary rule prohibits introduction into evidence of tangible materials seized during an unlawful search ...." Murray v. United States , 487 U.S. 533 , 536, 108 S.Ct. 2529 , 2533, 101 L.Ed.2d 472 (1988) ; Wong Sun v. United States , 371 U.S. 471 , 83 S.Ct. 407 , 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963) ).

2018"The exclusionary rule prohibits introduction into evidence of tangible materials seized during an unlawful search ...." Murray v. United States , 487 U.S. 533 , 536, 108 S.Ct. 2529 , 2533, 101 L.Ed.2d 472 (1988) ; Wong Sun v. United States , 371 U.S. 471 , 83 S.Ct. 407 , 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963) ).

2020Finally, our supreme court has held that “to trigger the exclusionary rule, police conduct must be sufficiently deliberate that exclusion can meaningfully deter it, and sufficiently culpable that such deterrence is worth the price paid by the justice system.” Delker v. State, 50 So. 3d 300, 303 (¶12) (Miss. 2010) (quoting Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135, 143 (2009)).

2018See Delker v. State , 50 So.3d 300 (Miss. 2010) (Randolph, J., for the Court) (regarding enforcing the exclusionary rule against a Fourth Amendment violation due to a violation of jurisdictional boundaries, finding that any deterrent effect "is significantly outweighed by the 'substantial social costs' and 'harm to the justice system' exacted by exclusion ....

2011“A search made without warrant and not incident to a lawful arrest is not illegal per se, but if the fruits of the search are to withstand the exclusionary rule, the search must have been predicated on probable cause.” McDuff v. State, 763 So.2d 850, 854 (Miss.2000) (quoting Hailes v. State, 268 So.2d 345, 346 (Miss.1972)).

2009“A search made without warrant and not incident to a lawful arrest is not illegal per se, but if the fruits of the search are to withstand the exclusionary rule, the search must have been predicated on probable cause.” McDuff v. State, 763 So. 2d 850, 854 (Miss. 2000) (quoting Hailes v. State, 268 So. 2d 345, 346 (Miss. 1972)).

2010See Delker, 50 So.3d at 319-20 (“we do not find that [Langston’s] mistake concerning the location of the municipal limits of the [T]own of Marion rises to the standard of conduct articulated in Herring ”).

2007See Delker, 2009 WL 2902631, at *9 (“we do not find that [Langston’s] mistake concerning the location of the municipal limits of the [T]own of Marion rises to the standard of conduct articulated in Herring”).

2010See Herring, 129 S.Ct. at 700 (quoting Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586, 591 , 126 S.Ct. 2159 , 165 L.Ed.2d 56 (2006)) (“exclusion ‘has always been our last resort, not our first impulse’ ”).

2010See Herring, 129 S.Ct. at 700 (quoting Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586, 591 , 126 S.Ct. 2159 , 165 L.Ed.2d 56 (2006)) (“exclusion ‘has always been our last resort, not our first impulse’ ”).

2010In considering the high price on the criminal justice system exacted by the exclusionary rule, Judge Cardozo questioned whether the criminal should “go free because the constable has blundered.” People v. Defore, 242 N.Y. 13, 21 , 150 N.E. 585, 587 (1926) (opinion of the Court by Cardozo, J.).

2010In considering the high price on the criminal justice system exacted by the exclusionary rule, Judge Cardozo questioned whether the criminal should “go free because the constable has blundered.” People v. Defore, 242 N.Y. 13, 21 , 150 N.E. 585, 587 (1926) (opinion of the Court by Cardozo, J.).

2001Smith v. State, 419 So.2d 563, 570 (Miss. 1982). ¶ 8.

2000Smith v. State, 419 So.2d 563, 570 (Miss. 1982). ¶8.

1999See Stringer v. State , 491 So.2d 837 , 843 (Miss. 1987) (Robertson J. concurring, joined by Prather and Sullivan, JJ.).

1999See Stringer v. State, 491 So.2d 837, 843 (Miss.1986) (Robertson J. concurring, joined by Prather and Sullivan, JJ.).

1986The exclusionary rule has been a part of the criminal procedural jurisprudence of this state at least since Tucker v. State, 128 Miss. 211, 223 , 90 So. 845, 846-48 (1922).

1986The exclusionary rule has been a part of the criminal procedural jurisprudence of this state at least since Tucker v. State, 128 Miss. 211, 223 , 90 So. 845, 846-48 (1922).

2026The inevitable-discovery exception to the exclusionary rule for evidence obtained by an illegal or warrantless search applies when the evidence or information “inevitably would have been discovered by lawful means.” Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431, 444 , 104 S. Ct. 2501 , 81 L.

2026The inevitable-discovery exception to the exclusionary rule for evidence obtained by an illegal or warrantless search applies when the evidence or information “inevitably would have been discovered by lawful means.” Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431, 444 , 104 S. Ct. 2501 , 81 L.

2009There is no individual right to have improperly obtained evidence excluded, and the fact that a violation occurs does not render the exclusionary rule applicable, per se.18 Rather, the exclusionary rule applies only 15 Terry, 392 U.S. at 27. 16 Gonzales v. State, 963 So. 2d 1138, 1141 (Miss. 2007); Terry, 392 U.S. at 27 . 17 See Gonzales, 963 So. 2d at 1141-42 ; Terry, 392 U.S. at 27 (citations omitted) (where the Supreme Court noted “that it is imperative that the facts be judged against an objective standard: ‘Would the facts available to the officer at the moment of the seizure or the searc

2009There is no individual right to have improperly obtained evidence excluded, and the fact that a violation occurs does not render the exclusionary rule applicable, per se.18 Rather, the exclusionary rule applies only 15 Terry, 392 U.S. at 27. 16 Gonzales v. State, 963 So. 2d 1138, 1141 (Miss. 2007); Terry, 392 U.S. at 27 . 17 See Gonzales, 963 So. 2d at 1141-42 ; Terry, 392 U.S. at 27 (citations omitted) (where the Supreme Court noted “that it is imperative that the facts be judged against an objective standard: ‘Would the facts available to the officer at the moment of the seizure or the searc

2024Even in the event of a Fourth Amendment violation, the supreme law of the land requires a case-by-case “balancing test” to be performed, and suppression ordered “only in those unusual cases in which exclusion will further the purpose of the exclusionary rule.” Kansas v. Ventris, 129 S. Ct. 1841, 1845 , 173 L.

2024Even in the event of a Fourth Amendment violation, the supreme law of the land requires a case-by-case “balancing test” to be performed, and suppression ordered “only in those unusual cases in which exclusion will further the purpose of the exclusionary rule.” Kansas v. Ventris, 129 S. Ct. 1841, 1845 , 173 L.

2022In Hughes v. Tupelo Oil Co., 510 So. 2d 502 (Miss. 1987), the Mississippi Supreme Court considered whether the exclusionary rule should be applied in a wrongful death suit involving only private parties.

2022The Court discussed Janis’s reasoning that the deterrent effect of applying the exclusionary rule should be balanced “against the societal costs of excluding relevant and reliable evidence.” Id.

1986Nor is this situation requiring application of the exclusionary rule, since it is not a case "where its remedial objectives are thought most efficaciously served." United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 348 , 94 S.Ct. 613, 620 , 38 L.Ed.2d 561, 571 (1974).

1986Nor is this situation requiring application of the exclusionary rule, since it is not a case "where its remedial objectives are thought most efficaciously served." United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 348 , 94 S.Ct. 613, 620 , 38 L.Ed.2d 561, 571 (1974).

1997As stated in Cole v. State, 493 So.2d 1333 (Miss. 1986); A search made without warrant and not incident to a lawful arrest is not illegal per se, but if the fruits of the search are to withstand the exclusionary rule, the search must have been predicated on probable cause.

1994As stated in Cole v. State, 493 So. 2d 1333 (Miss. 1986); A search made without warrant and not incident to a lawful arrest is not illegal per se, but if the fruits of the search are to withstand the exclusionary rule, the search must have been predicated on probable cause.

2026Evidence obtained in violation of Section 23 of the Mississippi Constitution or the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution implicates the exclusionary rule, which “prohibits introduction into evidence of tangible materials seized during an unlawful search.” Sutton v. State, 238 So. 3d 1150, 1159 (¶34) (Miss. 2018). ¶19.

2023“The exclusionary rule . . . does not apply automatically, as even a search pursuant to an invalid search warrant may be found to be reasonable under the good-faith exception.” Id. (citing White v. State, 842 So. 2d 565, 571 (Miss. 2003); United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 , 922- 23 (1984)).

2009In any event, the United States Supreme Court discussed the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule in Arizona v. Evans, 514 U.S. 1 , 115 S.Ct. 1185 , 131 L.Ed.2d 34 (1995).

2009In any event, the United States Supreme Court discussed the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule in Arizona v. Evans, 514 U.S. 1 , 115 S.Ct. 1185 , 131 L.Ed.2d 34 (1995).