When evidence is obtained in violation of a person’s Fourth Amendment rights, the exclusionary rule has traditionally barred from trial both physical and verbal evidence stemming from the violation, including confessions that result from an illegal arrest. See Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 485 (1963). However, courts also recognize that individuals may decide to confess as an act of free will, unaffected by any initial...

As noted previously, the Fourth Amendment protects the right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures.  U.S. Const. Amend. IV.  Ordinarily, evidence obtained in violation of a person’s Fourth Amendment rights cannot be used in a criminal case against that individual. See United States v. Riesselman, 646 F.3d 1072, 1078 (8th Cir. 2011).  However, there are some...

Evidence of the past sexual conduct of a victim of alleged criminal sexual conduct is admissible in very limited circumstances.  Minnesota Rule of Evidence 412 and Minnesota Statute § 609.347 are the result of many years of debate and analysis regarding the appropriate use of this type of evidence. The Rule and the statute continue to use slightly different language and clauses, and some uncertainty remains as to which should control...

Evidence of the possession or lack of liability insurance is not admissible on the issue of negligence or wrongful conduct.  Minnesota Rule of Evidence 411.  Evidence of insurance may be offered for another purpose, such as to show bias, ownership, or control. Id. (photo:...