Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
United States (2011), [16] the Court ruled that evidence gathered from a search performed in reasonable reliance on binding appellate precedent that was later overruled as being unconstitutional (here, a vehicle search that was rendered unconstitutional in view of Arizona v. Gant) was admissible under the good-faith exception. [17]
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 ] Background
Ohio (1961), the Supreme Court created the exclusionary rule, which generally operates to suppress – i.e. prevent the introduction at trial of – evidence obtained in violation of Constitutional rights. "Suppression of evidence, however, has always been [the court's] last resort, not [its] first impulse.
The Court of Appeals then held that evidence from the search had to be suppressed under the exclusionary rule. (While federal courts and some state courts recognized a good-faith exception to the rule for officers acting in good faith, the North Carolina Supreme Court had previously explicitly declined to recognize it.) [1]: 4–5
The Supreme Court also considered allowing exceptions for errors made by police in good faith. [49] The Reagan administration also asked Congress to ease the rule. [ 50 ] It has been proposed that the exclusionary rule be replaced with restitution to victims of police misconduct .
Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (1984), was a U.S. Supreme Court case that created an "inevitable discovery" exception to the exclusionary rule.The exclusionary rule makes most evidence gathered through violations of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which protects against unreasonable search and seizure, inadmissible in criminal trials as "fruit of the poisonous tree".
St. Louis Circuit Court Judge Jason Sengheiser on Friday ruled against a lawsuit brought by more than a dozen progressive faith leaders who argued that state lawmakers imposed their religious ...
Mark Rasch has argued that the Supreme Court's ruling in Carpenter, requiring law enforcement to get a warrant to access cell-site location information (data about what cell towers a phone has pinged), has been rendered meaningless by a combination of the good-faith exception and the inevitable discovery doctrine. [43]