Brief of U.S. v. Leon 2 United States v. Leon
468 U.S. 897, 104 Ct. 3430, 104 S. Ct.3405,82L. Ed.2d677 (1984)
Petitioner: Unites States
Respondent: Alberto Leon
Police officers monitored the drug activities of Leon. A search warrant had been issued upon the monitoring of the activities. A lot of drugs were confiscated. Leon was charged with violating the federal drug trafficking laws, during trial the court granted Leon’s suppression for motion because the officers didn’t properly issue the warrant on probable cause. The court found that the warrant contained false information which limited corroboration by the officers. The court of appeals affirmed that they refused to accept a good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule. The Supreme Court granted certiorari. U.S. v. Leon was a case in the Supreme Court for drugs in which the United States Supreme Court created “good faith” exception to the exclusionary rule. Should the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule be modified to not bar the use of evidence which was obtained by the officers acting in reasonable reliance on a search warrant issued by a detached and neutral magistrate which was found by unsupported probable cause. …show more content…
The exclusionary rule of the Fourth Amendment should have been modified to permit the introduction of the evidence that was obtained in the reasonable good-faith belief that search and seizure was in accord with the Fourth Amendment.
(White, Justice) Yes, The exclusionary rule of the Fourth Amendment should have been modified to permit the introduction of evidence that was seized in the reasonable good-faith belief that the search and seizure were in accord with the Fourth Amendment. The officer’s reliance for the warrant must have been objectively reasonable.
The exclusionary rule isn’t considered a constitutional right. It’s a judicially created to safeguard the Fourth Amendment rights through the deterrent effects, making the costs and benefits of the excluding inherently trustworthy and tangible evidence which has to be weighed, and remedy must be applied where costs is acceptable and the deterrent effect is served. Brief of U.S. v. Leon 3 The rule is to deter the misconduct of police officer’s without punishing judicial errors. No evidence was shown where the ruling would decrease the comment of the Judge protecting Fourth Amendment rights. Courts can allow a good faith exception to the exclusionary rule. The rule is judicially created rule be designed to deter police officer’s misconduct. The rule shouldn’t be applied when it doesn’t serve it’s function. Should an officer’s good faith rely on a defective warrant, he/she aren’t guilty of misconduct. Suppressing evidence when the warrant is defective doesn’t deter future misconduct, due to the fact that there’s nothing to deter, because the officer’s should have done nothing differently. The purpose of the exclusionary rule wasn’t achieved by suppressing the evidence that was seized in good faith which was reliant on a defective search warrant that was reversed. (Blackmun, Justice) The exclusionary rule wasn’t constitutionally compelled and there was no way to avoid the majority decision, because the rule wasn’t appreciable in effect when the police officer’s acted in objectively reasonable way upon the search warrant. (Brennan, Justice) the courts use of costs and benefit analysis had a narcotic effect for
468 U.S. 897, 104 Ct. 3430, 104 S. Ct.3405,82L. Ed.2d677 (1984)
Petitioner: Unites States
Respondent: Alberto Leon
Police officers monitored the drug activities of Leon. A search warrant had been issued upon the monitoring of the activities. A lot of drugs were confiscated. Leon was charged with violating the federal drug trafficking laws, during trial the court granted Leon’s suppression for motion because the officers didn’t properly issue the warrant on probable cause. The court found that the warrant contained false information which limited corroboration by the officers. The court of appeals affirmed that they refused to accept a good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule. The Supreme Court granted certiorari. U.S. v. Leon was a case in the Supreme Court for drugs in which the United States Supreme Court created “good faith” exception to the exclusionary rule. Should the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule be modified to not bar the use of evidence which was obtained by the officers acting in reasonable reliance on a search warrant issued by a detached and neutral magistrate which was found by unsupported probable cause. …show more content…
The exclusionary rule of the Fourth Amendment should have been modified to permit the introduction of the evidence that was obtained in the reasonable good-faith belief that search and seizure was in accord with the Fourth Amendment.
(White, Justice) Yes, The exclusionary rule of the Fourth Amendment should have been modified to permit the introduction of evidence that was seized in the reasonable good-faith belief that the search and seizure were in accord with the Fourth Amendment. The officer’s reliance for the warrant must have been objectively reasonable.
The exclusionary rule isn’t considered a constitutional right. It’s a judicially created to safeguard the Fourth Amendment rights through the deterrent effects, making the costs and benefits of the excluding inherently trustworthy and tangible evidence which has to be weighed, and remedy must be applied where costs is acceptable and the deterrent effect is served. Brief of U.S. v. Leon 3 The rule is to deter the misconduct of police officer’s without punishing judicial errors. No evidence was shown where the ruling would decrease the comment of the Judge protecting Fourth Amendment rights. Courts can allow a good faith exception to the exclusionary rule. The rule is judicially created rule be designed to deter police officer’s misconduct. The rule shouldn’t be applied when it doesn’t serve it’s function. Should an officer’s good faith rely on a defective warrant, he/she aren’t guilty of misconduct. Suppressing evidence when the warrant is defective doesn’t deter future misconduct, due to the fact that there’s nothing to deter, because the officer’s should have done nothing differently. The purpose of the exclusionary rule wasn’t achieved by suppressing the evidence that was seized in good faith which was reliant on a defective search warrant that was reversed. (Blackmun, Justice) The exclusionary rule wasn’t constitutionally compelled and there was no way to avoid the majority decision, because the rule wasn’t appreciable in effect when the police officer’s acted in objectively reasonable way upon the search warrant. (Brennan, Justice) the courts use of costs and benefit analysis had a narcotic effect for