D.Ore.: Even if ptf’s 4A violated in stop at Portland airport, exclusionary rule doesn’t apply in § 1983 case

“First, even assuming that Flinn had no lawful basis to stop and talk to Plaintiff in the first place, Plaintiff’s argument is not viable in a § 1983 claim. In a 2016 Ninth Circuit case, the court noted that the exclusionary rule prohibits the government from relying on evidence seized during an unlawful search in a criminal trial. Lingo v. City of Salem, 832 F.3d 953, 957 (9th Cir. 2016). The “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine extends the exclusionary rule to require suppression of other evidence that is derived from the illegal search or seizure. Id. at 957-58. … The Ninth Circuit joined at least four other circuits in rejecting this argument, explaining that unlike in criminal cases where the purpose of the rule is to remove the incentive for police to violate the Fourth Amendment and incriminate a suspect, the need for deterrence was minimal in § 1983 cases. Id. at 958; see also id. at 959 (joining the other federal courts of appeals which have ‘widely held that the exclusionary rule does not apply in § 1983 cases’). Lingo forecloses Plaintiff’s contention that an allegedly unreasonable stop tainted his subsequent arrest.” Freitag v. Alaska Airlines, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112396 (D. Ore. July 6, 2018).

This entry was posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Exclusionary rule. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.