By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//February 17, 2014//
United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit
Criminal
Sentencing — exclusionary rule
Even if an unlawful search was egregious, the fruits are still admissible at sentencing.
“Judges regularly remark the limits of their holdings. In addition to footnote 4 in Brimah, this court has several times observed that it was unwilling to suppress evidence at sentencing when the defendant had not shown that the police knowingly violated the Constitution for the purpose of jacking up the sentence. See, e.g., United States v. Perez, 581 F.3d 539, 544 (7th Cir. 2009); United States v. Krueger, 415 F.3d 766, 780 (7th Cir. 2005). But we have never held that such a purpose does justify suppression at sentencing. Turning a reservation of an issue into a holding that a police officer’s mental state could lead to suppression would violate the Supreme Court’s strongly expressed view that the fourth amendment is administered objectively, without regard to police officers’ thoughts or beliefs. See, e.g., Kentucky v. King, 131 S. Ct. 1849, 1859 (2011), which quotes and cites earlier decisions. And this court has consistently rebuffed arguments that manipulation of events by police or prosecutors to get higher sentences justifies disregarding evidence in the name of the fifth amendment or a common-law doctrine of ‘sentencing manipulation’ or ‘sentencing entrapment’. See, e.g., United States v. Long, 639 F.3d 293, 300–01 (7th Cir. 2011); United States v. Turner, 569 F.3d 637, 641 (7th Cir. 2009); United States v. Garcia, 79 F.3d 74, 76 (7th Cir. 1996). The rationale of those cases applies equally to contentions that searches and seizures were designed to yield longer sentences.”
Affirmed.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, McKinney, J., Easterbrook, J.