Shepherding our guardians!
42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil action for deprivation of rights:
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.
ARGUABLE PROBABLE CAUSE
ARGUABLE PROBABLE CAUSE exists if it turns out that an officer lacked adequate grounds for an arrest but made an objectively reasonable mistake about the existence of probable cause. Borgman v. Kedley, 646 F.3d 518 (8th Cir. 2011), see Johnson v. McCarver, 942 F.3d 405, 409 (8th Cir. 2019)
Attenuation Doctrine
A rule in criminal procedure that says evidence obtained illegally may still be used in court if the connection between the evidence and the illegal means is far enough apart. This is an exception to the fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree doctrine, which says that evidence obtained illegally cannot be used in court.
EXCLUSIONARY RULE
The EXCLUSIONARY RULE prevents the government from using most evidence gathered in violation of the United States Constitution. The decision in MAPP V. OHIO established that the EXCLUSIONARY RULE applies to evidence gained from an UNREASONABLE SEARCH or SEIZURE in violation of the 4th Amendment. The decision in MIRANDA V. ARIZONA established that the EXCLUSIONARY RULE applies to improperly elicited self-incriminatory statements gathered in violation of the 5th Amendment, and to evidence gained in situations where the government violated the defendant's 6th Amendment right to counsel. However, the rule does NOT apply in civil cases, including deportation hearings. See INS V. LOPEZ-MENDOZA.
Good Faith Exception Doctrine
Good faith provides an exception to the 4th Amendment EXCLUSIONARY RULE barring the use at trial of evidence obtained pursuant to an UNLAWFUL SEARCH and SEIZURE. If officers had REASONABLE, good faith belief that they were acting according to legal authority, such as by relying on a SEARCH WARRANT that is later found to have been legally defective, the illegally SEIZED evidence is admissible under this exception.
ARIZONA V. EVANS is an example of the good faith exception in action: officers relied on a SEARCH WARRANT that turned out to be invalid. In DAVIS V. UNITED STATES, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the EXCLUSIONARY RULE does NOT apply when the police conduct a SEARCH in reliance on binding appellate precedent allowing the SEARCH. Under ILLINOIS V. KRULL, it was determined that evidence may be admissible if the officers rely on a statute that is later invalidated. In HERRING V. UNITED STATES, the Court concluded that the good faith exception to the EXCLUSIONARY RULE applied when police employees erred in maintaining records in a WARRANT database.
Interlocutory Appeal
The term “interlocutory” is used to indicate a lack of finality. An interlocutory appeal is an appeal of a non-final order issued during the course of litigation.
The collateral order doctrine sets forth the rules for such appeals. Interlocutory appeals are extremely rare, and a three-part test determines whether the collateral order exception to res judicata makes such an appeal possible:
-
The order must have conclusively determined the disputed question;
-
The order must “resolve an issue completely separate from the merits of the action”;
-
The order must be “effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment.”
Res Judicata
Res judicata is a principle most used in civil litigation. Directly translated, res judicata means “a matter judged.” Specifically, the res judicata principle indicates that if there is a final judgment based on merits, then another plaintiff cannot relitigate the same matter for the same cause of action. The court uses the term “finality” to indicate a judgment that is based on merits and is final.