In
Leon, the Supreme Court observed that "'[i]f the purpose of the exclusionary rule is to deter unlawful police conduct, then evidence obtained from a search should be suppressed only if it can be said that the law enforcement officer had knowledge, or may properly be charged with knowledge, that the search was unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment.'"
United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 919, 104 S.Ct. 3405 (1984) (quoting
United States v. Peltier, 422 U.S. 531, 542, 95 S.Ct. 2313, 45 L.Ed.2d 374 (1975)). In
Leon, the Supreme Court reviewed the exclusion of evidence seized "by officers acting in reasonable reliance on a search warrant issued by a detached and neutral magistrate but ultimately found to be unsupported by probable cause." 468 U.S. at 900, 104 S.Ct. 3405. The High Court held that "when an officer acting with objective good faith has obtained a search warrant from a judge ... and acted within its scope," the exclusionary rule should not be employed to "[p]enaliz[e] the officer for the magistrate's error."
Id. at 920-21, 104 S.Ct. 3405. As the Court observed in
Leon, such an application of the exclusionary rule "cannot logically contribute to the deterrence of Fourth Amendment violations."
Id. US v. Davis, 754 F. 3d 1205 (11th Cir. 2014).
The good faith exception prevents operation of the exclusionary rule if the police officer's reliance on a search warrant was objectively reasonable.
United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 922-23, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984). When an officer acts within the scope of a search warrant, "[p]enalizing the officer for the magistrate's error, rather than his own, cannot logically contribute to the deterrence of Fourth Amendment violations."
Id. at 921, 104 S.Ct. 3405.
Leon identified four situations in which the good faith exception does not apply: when the affiant misleads the magistrate with a reckless or knowing disregard for the truth, when the magistrate wholly abandons the judicial role, when the affidavit is "bare bones" or "so lacking in indicia of probable cause" that reliance is unreasonable, and when the warrant is facially deficient in that it fails to specify the place to search or the items to seize.
Id. at 923, 104 S.Ct. 3405.
US v. Glover, 755 F. 3d 811 (7th Cir. 2014).
THIS CASEBOOK contains a selection of 42 U. S. Court of Appeals decisions that analyze and interpret the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule. The selection of decisions spans from 2012 to the date of publication.
