THE EXCLUSION OF UNCONSTITUTIONALLY OBTAINED EVIDENCE IN CIVIL PROCEEDINGS: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS BETWEEN THE USA AND SPAIN
Keywords:
Exclusionary Rule - Unlawfully obtained evidence - Procedural fundamental rights -Fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine - Deterrent effect - Constitutional guarantees of evidence - Exclusion of evidence in civil proceedings - Suppression doctrine - EvidentAbstract
The Exclusionary Rule determines that evidence obtained in violation of constitutional rights cannot be used in trial. This theory was adopted in the United States of America in 1914 and has spread to other countries. The US Supreme Court expanded the Rule's scope through cases like Silverthorne and Mapp, but then limited it by creating various exceptions. In the United States the Rule has been applied mainly to criminal proceedings because its primary objective is considered to be police deterrence.Influenced by the American doctrines, Spanish courts have adopted not only the Exclusionary Rule, but also some of its exceptions. However, the Spanish Constitutional Court has defined a different rationale for the suppression of evidence. In Spain the Exclusionary Rule is viewed as a safeguard that derives implicitly from the system of fundamental rights. For this reason its scope is wider and it can also be implemented in non-criminal proceedings (civil, administrative and labor). Because the development of the Rule by the US Supreme Court has served as an example to other countries, like Spain, international scholars have continuously studied this topic. Nonetheless, the application of the Exclusionary Rule in the United States to civil proceedings has seldom been analyzed because it is less common and sometimes even thought of as impossible. This study shows that, as a matter of fact, the US Supreme Court has contemplated the possibility of applying the Rule to cases like One 1958 Plymouth Sedan, Janis and Lopez-Mendoza, which were forfeitures and deportation proceedings of civil nature. The study concludes that in the United States, exclusion of evidence in civil proceedings is exceptional and very limited when compared to the ampler application of the Exclusionary Rule that occurs in Spain, where it is effective in both criminal and non-criminal proceedings.References
JUAN LUIS GÓMEZ COLOMER, PRUEBA Y PROCESO PENAL. ANÁLISIS ESPECIAL DE LA PRUEBA PROHIBIDA EN EL SISTEMA ESPAÑOL Y EN EL DERECHO COMPARADO, (Tirant lo Blanch 2008);
ANDREA PLANCHADELL GARGALLO, PRUEBA PROHIBIDA: EVOLUCIÓN JURISPRUDENCIAL. COMENTARIO A LAS SENTENCIAS QUE MARCAN EL CAMINO (Aranzadi 2014).
Toni Fine, Common Law and Civil Law Systems: Some Defining and Distinguishing Characteristics, III ANUARIO JURÍDICO DE VILLANUEVA 143 (2009.
Juan Luis Gómez Colomer, La evolución de las teorías sobre la prueba prohibida aplicadas en el proceso penal español: del expansionismo sin límites al más puro reduccionismo. Una meditación sobre su desarrollo futuro inmediato, in PRUEBA Y PROCESO PENAL. ANÁLISIS ESPECIAL DE LA PRUEBA PROHIBIDA EN EL SISTEMA ESPAÑOL Y EN EL DERECHO COMPARADO 107 (Juan Luis Gómez Colomer et al., Tirant lo Blanch 2008).
José María Asencio Mellado, Prueba ilícita: Declaración y efectos, 26 REVISTA GENERAL DE DERECHO PROCESAL 1 (2012).
Marjorie A. Shields (2004) Admissibility, in Civil Proceeding, of Evidence Obtained through Unlawful Search and Seizure, 105 A.L.R.5th 1 (2003 and Supp. 2013).
WAYNE R. LAFAVE, SEARCH AND SEIZURE. A TREATISE ON THE FOURTH AMMENDMENT, vol. 1 at 218-255 (Thomson West 4th ed. 2004 and 2012 Supp.).
WILLIAM E. RINGEL, SEARCHES AND SEIZURES, ARRESTS AND CONFESSIONS (West 2013).
Marjorie A. Shields (2003) Admissibility, in Civil Proceeding, of Evidence Obtained through Unlawful Search and Seizure, 105 A.L.R.5th 1 (2003 and Supp. 2013).
Juan Ramón Medina Cepero, (2002) La ilicitud de la prueba en el proceso civil, 7 REPERTORIO DE JURISPRUDENCIA ARANZADI 187 (2002);
Rafael Bellido Penadés, La prueba ilícita y su control en el proceso civil, 89 REVISTA ESPAÑOLA DE DERECHO CONSTITUCIONAL 77 (2010).
Juan Varea Orbea, (2007) El control judicial de la prueba ilícita en el proceso civil español, in OBJETO Y CARGA DE LA PRUEBA (Xavier Abel Lluch et al., Bosch 2007).;
Joan Picó i Junoy, (2007) La prueba ilícita y su control judicial en el proceso civil, in EL TRIBUNAL SUPREMO, SU DOCTRINA LEGAL Y EL RECURSO DE CASACIÓN. ESTUDIOS EN HOMENAJE DEL PROFESOR ALMAGRO NOSETE (Vicente Gimeno Sendra et al., Iustel 2007).
Judgment of the Spanish Constitutional Court (from now on JSCC) 114/1984 of November 29, that solved a case of Labor Law in which the recording of a private conversation was used as evidence against a journalist. In Spain, the Supreme Court is the head of the State‟s judicial system. It is divided into five chambers (civil, criminal, administrative, social and military). In addition, there is an independent Constitutional Court with jurisdiction in all of the country.
The Constitutional Court is the supreme interpreter of the Spanish Constitution and it is regulated by the Organic Law 2/1979 of the Constitutional Court, of October 3, 1979; available at: http://www.tribunalconstitucional.es/en/tribunal/normasregulad oras/Lists/NormasRegPDF/LOTC-en.pdf. English of the Spanish Civil
Procedure Act of 2000 is available at http://www.mjusticia.gob.es/cs/Satellite/es/1288774502225/Text oPublicaciones.html. In its original version, the Law states: “No surtirán efecto las pruebas obtenidas, directa o indirectamente, violentando los derechos o libertades fundamentales” (artículo 11.1, Ley Orgánica 6/1985, de 1 de julio, del Poder Judicial).
The Organic Law on the Judiciary is available in English at: http://iccdb.webfactional.com/documents/implementations/pdf/ Spain_-_Organic_Law_6-1985.pdf
Daniel W. Kaminski, Conclude to Exclude: The Exclusionary Rule’s Role in Civil Forfeiture Proceedings, 6 SEVENTH CIRCUIT REV. 268 (2010), available at https://www.kentlaw.iit.edu/Documents/Academic%20Programs /7CR/v6-1/kaminski.pdf;
Christine L. Andreoli, Admissibility of Illegally Seized Evidence in Subsequent Civil Proceedings: Focusing on Motive to Determine Deterrence, 51 FORDHAM L. REV. 1019 (1983), available at http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol51/iss5/10/.
