Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

09-11328 Davis. v. U.S.

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//June 16, 2011//

09-11328 Davis. v. U.S.

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//June 16, 2011//

Listen to this article

Search and Seizure
Exclusionary rule; good faith exception

Searches conducted in objectively reasonable reliance on binding appellate precedent are not subject to the exclusionary rule.

The exclusionary rule’s sole purpose is to deter future Fourth Amendment violations, e.g., Herring v. United States, 555 U. S. 135, 141, and its operation is limited to situations in which this purpose is “thought most efficaciously served,” United States v. Calandra, 414 U. S. 338, 348. For exclusion to be appropriate, the deterrence benefits of suppression must outweigh the rule’s heavy costs. Under a line of cases beginning with United States v. Leon, 468 U. S. 897, the result of this cost-benefit analysis turns on the “flagrancy of the po-lice misconduct” at issue. Id., at 909, 911. When the police exhibit “deliberate,” “reckless,” or “grossly negligent” disregard for Fourth Amendment rights, the benefits of exclusion tend to outweigh the costs. Herring, supra, at 144. But when the police act with an objectively reasonable good-faith belief that their conduct is lawful, or when their conduct involves only simple, isolated negligence, the deterrent value of suppression is diminished, and exclusion cannot “pay its way.” See Leon, supra, at 909, 919, 908, n. 6; Herring, supra, at 137.

598 F. 3d 1259, affirmed.

Local effect: The opinion is consistent with Wisconsin precedent. State v. Dearborn, 2010 WI 84; State v. Littlejohn, 2010 WI 85.

09-11328 Davis. v. U.S.

Alito, J.; Sotomayor, J., concurring; Breyer, J., dissenting.

TAGS: SCOTUS Digest, Criminal Digest, Search and Seizure Digest,

Full Text

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests