NCJ Number
96810
Journal
Trial Volume: 21 Issue: 1 Dated: (January 1985) Pages: 50-56
Date Published
1985
Length
7 pages
Annotation
On July 5, 1984, the U.S. Supreme Court, in United States v. Leon, struck a blow to the fourth amendment with its decision that evidence obtained from an illegal search is admissible in court if the police had a warrant to secure the evidence, even if the warrant was later declared defective or invalid.
Abstract
The decision culminated 13 years of effort by Chief Justice Warren Burger and others opposed to the exclusionary rule. In Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, Chief Justice Burger stated his view that the exclusionary rule had failed in its mission to deter the police. His colleagues did not agree, but between Bivens and Leon, the Court made sharp inroads into the application of the exclusionary rule in fourth amendment cases. In Rakas v. Illion and later decisions, the Court stiffened the standing requirements to preclude some victims of police misconduct from taking advantage of the exclusionary rule. The theory that if the police acted in good faith, the rule should not apply was tested in Michigan v. DeFillippo in 1979. The Supreme Court held that the invalidity of the statute did not undermine the validity of the arrest nor the subsequent search. In Leon, the Supreme Court held that even if the warrant was defective, the evidence was admissible under a newly created good faith exception to the exclusionary rule. Twenty-eight footnotes are provided.