I've read the 5x21 Sides
Lawyers, let's get to work.
Look, I'm not a legal genius, but I passed the bar, I know a little bit, enough so you won't illegally search my shit. So, I cannot help but let you know that the evidentiary hearing, as it goes down in the sides, is pretty much ridiculous. I'm just saying. Here's why:
1. That stuff would likely come in.
2. No.
3. I'm serious.
4. While they charged in without a warrant, there are ways that this is okay:
(a) Exigency + probable cause
(b) attenuation of the taint
(a) Exigency + probable cause
The exigency: A FEDERAL AGENT WAS ALMOST MADE DEAD. His life was at stake. While the most obvious exigency is when you can hear screaming and yelling and whatever else, it's not limited to that, under federal law (and because D.C. is a purely federal jurisdiction, they apply the U.S. Constitution's version of the 4th Amendment. The U.S. Constitution's 4th Amendment serves as a baseline for state jurisdictions - you cannot give less protection than that version of the 4th Amendment provides. However, states can provide MORE protection, if they choose. D.C., as far as I know, does not have this choice. Which is hella interesting, but anyway). Anyway, even if someone could make a straight-faced argument that exigency is so limited in scope, a Judge would need a solid line of case law not to consider the argument that someone whose life is in immediate danger is not enough of an exigency. I'm sorry. It's bullshit. That judge should be disbarred.
(b) attenuation of the taint
Let's say that, in some far off fucking reality, that there is an actual argument that the evidence really was illegally obtained. Let's just pretend. Then, the evidence would be (and here's a phrase even non-lawyers should be somewhat familiar with) "fruit of the poisionous tree." What Law & Order and whatever the hell else doesn't tell you is that just because something is deemed fruit of the poisionius tree, that doesn't mean it is ultimately inadmissible, because there are still ways to "attenuate the taint." You've gotta understand, everything about the 4th Amendment is a balancing test, between the privacy rights of the accused and the importance of law enforcement's ability to gather evidence (it should be noted that it's not actually about the importance of the individual item of evidence; if it's the smoking gun, or just a piece of less important evidence, that does not matter - the way law enforcement obtained the evidence is what matters. Yes, you are supposed to feel a little frustrated by this, but be thankful, because I swear it is protecting you privacy).
There are a few ways to attenuate the taint, the most prominent being the follwing:
i. The Inevitable Discovery Rule (IDR)
ii. The Independent Source Doctrine (ISD)
i. IDR
It says what it means. That, no matter what, the police would have obtained the evidence eventually, and that the fact they jumped the gun didn't matter - that really, the timing didn't matter. I think this is the strongest case. You know, fine, go to the magistrate. Make your case. I feel confident they had enough for probable cause. More than enough. They would have gotten into that storage unit.
ii. The Independent Source Doctrine (ISD)
OR
What Heather Taffit would have done if she were really clever.
The ISD applies when you've gotten information leading to evidence through one source which is tainted, but you can prove that you would have gotten it through an independent, different source with no taint attached.
If Heather Taffit would have been smart, I'm telling you, really, REALLY smart, she would have spilled the beans right there and then to Brennan & Co. Why? Because she was being held against her will and threatened physically. Then, at the evidentiary hearing, she could have argued that she gave that information up under duress, and it doesn't matter that it was true: she was coerced. And that shit gets thrown out, because if she could have let the cat out of the bag BEFORE they really got through the background check Jared was doing, then she's got an argument that they may have never truly had an independent source for that knowledge, and that perhaps they never would have conducted the background search in the way they did without having that information to begin with. That might actually hold some water (a very little).
Anyway, I had to get that out of my system. Fellow lawyers and law dorks, feel free to add to/correct my analysis where it appears to be lacking; it has been a few years since crim pro, and I don't work in criminal law at all now (though I hope to someday!).
Look, I'm not a legal genius, but I passed the bar, I know a little bit, enough so you won't illegally search my shit. So, I cannot help but let you know that the evidentiary hearing, as it goes down in the sides, is pretty much ridiculous. I'm just saying. Here's why:
1. That stuff would likely come in.
2. No.
3. I'm serious.
4. While they charged in without a warrant, there are ways that this is okay:
(a) Exigency + probable cause
(b) attenuation of the taint
(a) Exigency + probable cause
The exigency: A FEDERAL AGENT WAS ALMOST MADE DEAD. His life was at stake. While the most obvious exigency is when you can hear screaming and yelling and whatever else, it's not limited to that, under federal law (and because D.C. is a purely federal jurisdiction, they apply the U.S. Constitution's version of the 4th Amendment. The U.S. Constitution's 4th Amendment serves as a baseline for state jurisdictions - you cannot give less protection than that version of the 4th Amendment provides. However, states can provide MORE protection, if they choose. D.C., as far as I know, does not have this choice. Which is hella interesting, but anyway). Anyway, even if someone could make a straight-faced argument that exigency is so limited in scope, a Judge would need a solid line of case law not to consider the argument that someone whose life is in immediate danger is not enough of an exigency. I'm sorry. It's bullshit. That judge should be disbarred.
(b) attenuation of the taint
Let's say that, in some far off fucking reality, that there is an actual argument that the evidence really was illegally obtained. Let's just pretend. Then, the evidence would be (and here's a phrase even non-lawyers should be somewhat familiar with) "fruit of the poisionous tree." What Law & Order and whatever the hell else doesn't tell you is that just because something is deemed fruit of the poisionius tree, that doesn't mean it is ultimately inadmissible, because there are still ways to "attenuate the taint." You've gotta understand, everything about the 4th Amendment is a balancing test, between the privacy rights of the accused and the importance of law enforcement's ability to gather evidence (it should be noted that it's not actually about the importance of the individual item of evidence; if it's the smoking gun, or just a piece of less important evidence, that does not matter - the way law enforcement obtained the evidence is what matters. Yes, you are supposed to feel a little frustrated by this, but be thankful, because I swear it is protecting you privacy).
There are a few ways to attenuate the taint, the most prominent being the follwing:
i. The Inevitable Discovery Rule (IDR)
ii. The Independent Source Doctrine (ISD)
i. IDR
It says what it means. That, no matter what, the police would have obtained the evidence eventually, and that the fact they jumped the gun didn't matter - that really, the timing didn't matter. I think this is the strongest case. You know, fine, go to the magistrate. Make your case. I feel confident they had enough for probable cause. More than enough. They would have gotten into that storage unit.
ii. The Independent Source Doctrine (ISD)
OR
What Heather Taffit would have done if she were really clever.
The ISD applies when you've gotten information leading to evidence through one source which is tainted, but you can prove that you would have gotten it through an independent, different source with no taint attached.
If Heather Taffit would have been smart, I'm telling you, really, REALLY smart, she would have spilled the beans right there and then to Brennan & Co. Why? Because she was being held against her will and threatened physically. Then, at the evidentiary hearing, she could have argued that she gave that information up under duress, and it doesn't matter that it was true: she was coerced. And that shit gets thrown out, because if she could have let the cat out of the bag BEFORE they really got through the background check Jared was doing, then she's got an argument that they may have never truly had an independent source for that knowledge, and that perhaps they never would have conducted the background search in the way they did without having that information to begin with. That might actually hold some water (a very little).
Anyway, I had to get that out of my system. Fellow lawyers and law dorks, feel free to add to/correct my analysis where it appears to be lacking; it has been a few years since crim pro, and I don't work in criminal law at all now (though I hope to someday!).