Exclusionary Rule – Good Faith Exception

By: Derek Hawkins//November 21, 2017//

Listen to this article

WI Court of Appeals – District II

Case Name: State of Wisconsin v. James R. Stib

Case No.: 2017AP3-CR

Officials: Neubauer, C.J., Reilly, P.J., and Hagedorn, J.

Focus: Exclusionary Rule – Good Faith Exception

This appeal concerns whether the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies to evidence obtained when binding appellate precedent permitted a reasonable delay of a traffic stop to conduct a dog sniff. See State v. Arias, 2008 WI 84, 311 Wis. 2d 358, 752 N.W.2d 748. James R. Stib argues that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated when his traffic stop was prolonged for the sole purpose of conducting a dog sniff in contravention of the United States Supreme Court’s holding in Rodriguez v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 1609 (2015). We affirm as the dog sniff was conducted in objectively reasonable reliance on then-existing precedent, and, therefore, the good faith exception applies and renders exclusion of the evidence an inappropriate remedy.

Full Text

Attorney Derek A. Hawkins is the managing partner at Hawkins Law Offices LLC, where he heads up the firm’s startup law practice. He specializes in business formation, corporate governance, intellectual property protection, private equity and venture capital funding and mergers & acquisitions. Check out the website at www.hawkins-lawoffices.com or contact them at 262-737-8825.

Select Region or Brand

Upcoming Event