|
|
Sunday, October 22, 2023
By Michael Nichols
Categories: Michael J. Nichols
The "Exclusionary Rule" is an important concept in Constitutional Law that is applied almost exclusively in criminal cases. What it means is this: if law enforcement violates the rights of an individual either in how the contact/detention was made or how evidence was gathered, the evidence cannot be used to prosecute that person whose rights were violated.
The rule is pretty straightforward: you get evidence through improper tactics or techniques -- and that evidence cannot be used at a subsequent trial unless the connection between the bad act and the evidence getting into the hands of the prosecutor is so remote that it would not matter whether the constitution was violated.
However, in a case that will not seem to go away, "People v Lucynski" - the Court of Appeals ruled that the exclusionary rule did not apply EVEN THOUGH the officer who arrested Mr. Lucynski mis-applied the traffic laws in order to make contact with him and detain him. The COA said that there was no evidence that the officer "meant" or "intentionally" violated Mr. Lucynski's right to be free of an unreasonable seizure.
I read that and just sort of scratched my head. Fortunately, Mr. Lucynski's attorney kept up the battle. He appealed that ruling to the Michigan Supreme Court. The MSC will hear arguments, probably this year, on whether to grant leave or in other words, allow the Lucynski team to appeal that puzzling ruling by the lower court of appeal.
It seems pretty straightforward - there is no requirement or "free pass" to law enforcement if the citizen does not prove that the officer intended to violate the constitution.