Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In United States constitutional law and criminal procedure, the good-faith exception (also good-faith doctrine) is one of the limitations on the exclusionary rule of the Fourth Amendment. [ 1 ] For criminal proceedings, the exclusionary rule prohibits entry of evidence obtained through an unreasonable search and seizure , such as one executed ...
Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court established the "good faith" exception to the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule. [1]
Edmunds rejected the federal "good faith exception" to the exclusionary rule of United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) and established four factors which must be addressed whenever a legal issue implicates the state constitution: The text of the state constitutional provision, The provision's history including relevant case law,
Good faith exception: If police officers acting in good faith (bona fides) rely upon a defective search warrant, then the evidence acquired may still be used under the good-faith exception. Independent source doctrine : If police obtain evidence illegally, but also obtain the same evidence through an independent, legal means, the evidence is ...
Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25 (1949), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held 6—3 that, while the Fourth Amendment was applicable to the states, the exclusionary rule was not a necessary ingredient of the Fourth Amendment's right against warrantless and unreasonable searches and seizures.
Justice Samuel Alito called it a “wisp” of a decision — a Supreme Court ruling Thursday that favored Catholic Social Services in Philadelphia but was far from the constitutional gale wind ...
The Full Faith and Credit Clause has been applied to orders of protection, for which the clause was invoked by the Violence Against Women Act, and child support, for which the enforcement of the clause was spelled out in the Federal Full Faith and Credit for Child Support Orders Act (28 U.S.C. § 1738B).
I don't see it as suggesting a general good faith exception for police conduct ... [which is] why the dissenters didn't sound the alarm...." [14] Around two weeks later, The New York Times' Adam Liptak expressed concern that the decision was a step towards overruling Mapp. [15]