The narcotics trade is by its nature an operation veiled in secrecy with every effort made to evade detection. As such, when a prosecutor is attempting to prove a drug case, especially a complex case, the expertise of the officer can be very helpful to the jury.

[T]he courts have continually and consistently recognized the importance of an officer’s expertise from his or her training and experience.

Experts are oftentimes views as limited to some scientist with some fancy degree or title. However, an expert can form an opinion based on “knowledge, skill, experience, training or education.” And that “or” is very important as any one of the five preceding backgrounds can make one an expert.

The Supreme Court held that so long as there is an objective basis for the stop, the officer’s subjective intent plays no role in the analysis.

In addition to impeachment, the exclusionary rule does not apply to the presentation of evidence to a grandy jury or even a sentencing proceeding after conviction. Both of those functions are fact finding endeavors separate from the presentation of evidence to convict, …

As the Miranda Rule is simply an extension of the privilege against self-incrimination, it is a trial right. Since, as the Court said, the violations only apply if the un-Mirandized statement is admitted at trial, the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine does not apply to interviews which are not compliant with the requirements of Miranda.

[I]f the authorities have a source leading to the discovery of the evidence independent of the misconduct (independent source), or if the evidence would have been discovered anyway (inevitable discovery), then the exclusionary rule is not applicable.

Generally, if there has been a 4th Amendment violation, then not only is that evidence suppressed, but also any evidence discovered as a result of that illegal conduct – this is known as the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine.

The fact that the officer arrested the defendant for a nonexistent crime in the officer’s internal (subjective) state of mind did not invalidate the reasonable (objective) basis for the arrest.  

[E]vidence should not be excluded if the officer has simply made a reasonable mistake. The Supreme Court has stated that the exclusionary rule should only be used when there has been “grossly negligent conduct” or “recurring or systemic negligence.”

The Supreme Court has had to advise lower courts that this rule is a “last resort,” not a “first impulse.” Recall that the 4th Amendment requires officers be “reasonable” in their searches and seizures. Can an officer make a mistake – sure… so long as it is reasonable.

While the 4th Amendment protects everyone, what is “reasonable’ is determined through the lens of innocent.

[I]f a suspect is a passenger riding in another’s car, then that passenger typically does not have standing to challenge the search of that car (like the trunk, under the seats, or glove box).

[T]he Supreme Court held that drug conspirators, merely present in a home for a matter of hours for the commercial purpose of the drug conspiracy will not have “standing” to challenge the search of that home.

Standing is one of the few areas of criminal procedure where the defendant has the burden of proof. That is, the defendant must demonstrate standing to contest the search he or she wishes to challenge …

[I]n a criminal proceeding, a suspect simply cannot complain about police searches of another person’s property or person. Put another way, a person can only challenge a violation of his or her rights, not the rights of another.

[I]f officers conduct a search or seizure without a warrant, it is “presumed” to be unreasonable – that does not mean such a search is unreasonable, law enforcement just has the burden to prove the warrantless search was reasonable …

The Court stated that the line of demarcation is 48 hours. If someone is held longer, it is presumptively unreasonable (i.e., unconstitutional and illegal). Likewise, if a court makes the probable cause determination within 48 hours, the detention is presumptively reasonable.

Cleary, if an officer can witness the crime, it is in his presence. This typically includes visual aid such as a binoculars. Likewise, if an officer is able to hear an offense, it is typically considered to have been committed within his or her presence.

Clearly, handcuffing a suspect and placing him or her into a jail is an arrest – that’s easy. But what police action short of that would amount to an arrest. When determining whether there has been a seizure of the person, experts have applied the so-called Mendenhall-Royer test. In applying this test the key question is whether “a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave.”