Brief of U.S. v. Leon 2 United States v. Leon
468 U.S. 897, 104 Ct. 3430, 104 S. Ct.3405,82L. Ed.2d677 (1984)
Petitioner: Unites States
Respondent: Alberto Leon
Police officers monitored the drug activities of Leon. A search warrant had been issued upon the monitoring of the activities. A lot of drugs were confiscated. Leon was charged with violating the federal drug trafficking laws, during trial the court granted Leon’s suppression for motion because the officers didn’t properly issue the warrant on probable cause. The court found that the warrant contained false information which limited corroboration by the officers. The court …show more content…
The exclusionary rule of the Fourth Amendment should have been modified to permit the introduction of the evidence that was obtained in the reasonable good-faith belief that search and seizure was in accord with the Fourth Amendment.
(White, Justice) Yes, The exclusionary rule of the Fourth Amendment should have been modified to permit the introduction of evidence that was seized in the reasonable good-faith belief that the search and seizure were in accord with the Fourth Amendment. The officer’s reliance for the warrant must have been objectively reasonable.
The exclusionary rule isn’t considered a constitutional right. It’s a judicially created to safeguard the Fourth Amendment rights through the deterrent effects, making the costs and benefits of the excluding inherently trustworthy and tangible evidence which has to be weighed, and remedy must be applied where costs is acceptable and the deterrent effect is
468 U.S. 897, 104 Ct. 3430, 104 S. Ct.3405,82L. Ed.2d677 (1984)
Petitioner: Unites States
Respondent: Alberto Leon
Police officers monitored the drug activities of Leon. A search warrant had been issued upon the monitoring of the activities. A lot of drugs were confiscated. Leon was charged with violating the federal drug trafficking laws, during trial the court granted Leon’s suppression for motion because the officers didn’t properly issue the warrant on probable cause. The court found that the warrant contained false information which limited corroboration by the officers. The court …show more content…
The exclusionary rule of the Fourth Amendment should have been modified to permit the introduction of the evidence that was obtained in the reasonable good-faith belief that search and seizure was in accord with the Fourth Amendment.
(White, Justice) Yes, The exclusionary rule of the Fourth Amendment should have been modified to permit the introduction of evidence that was seized in the reasonable good-faith belief that the search and seizure were in accord with the Fourth Amendment. The officer’s reliance for the warrant must have been objectively reasonable.
The exclusionary rule isn’t considered a constitutional right. It’s a judicially created to safeguard the Fourth Amendment rights through the deterrent effects, making the costs and benefits of the excluding inherently trustworthy and tangible evidence which has to be weighed, and remedy must be applied where costs is acceptable and the deterrent effect is