Not a Fourth Amendment case, but one with some Fourth Amendment implications:<\/p>\n
Officers testified falsely about what happened in defendant\u2019s home during arrest. He was strip searched and assaulted and allegedly made a statement. The District Court suppresses the statement. The government, to its credit, also treated a statement from another officer for the suppression hearing about the search as Giglio material and turned it over. United States v. Gonzalez, 719 F. Supp. 2d 167 (D. Mass. 2010)*:<\/p>\n
Because the government has not proven that Gonzalez waived his Fifth Amendment rights knowingly or voluntarily, both his statements and the physical evidence derived from them must be suppressed. See United States v. Patane<\/a>, 542 U.S. 630, 639 (2004); Chavez v. Martinez<\/a>, 538 U.S. 760, 769 (2003). The inevitable discovery exception to the exclusionary rule does not qualify this conclusion. Permitting the contents of the shoebox to be used as evidence would significantly weaken the protections provided by the Fifth Amendment. See United States v. Almeida<\/a>, 434 F.3d 25, 28 (1st Cir. 2006); Rullo<\/a>, 748 F. Supp. at 40-45. It would also abet police misconduct, which in this case involved not only Smith punitively punching Gonzalez, but Smith testifying falsely about events at Gonzalez’s home as well. See Almeida, 434 F.3d at 28; Rullo, 748 F. Supp. at 40-45.<\/p>\n
It is not clear whether the suppression of the gun and crack found in the shoebox will result in Gonzalez escaping conviction because the court may find that the second gun found in a search of Gonzalez’s bedroom after he disclosed the shoebox is admissible. However, even if all of the evidence is suppressed and the case dismissed, the cost to society of condoning the police misconduct in this case would be unacceptable. As Justice Louis D. Brandeis explained, in words that are etched into this courthouse:<\/p>\n
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Olmstead v. United States<\/a>, 277 U.S. 438, 485 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading