Brief of US v. Leon

Should the twenty-five percent Amendment exclusionary curb include as one of its exceptions the yard obtained by officers acting in reasonable reliance on a pursuit pattern issued by a detached and neutral judge but found to be unsupported by apparent hit? Statement of Facts The Burbank Police Department, upon receiving tips from informants, conducted a drug trafficking investigation upon the respondents. Extensive surveillance operation was do on respondents three residences and several cars. After sufficient testify was gathered an officer fain an application for a reassert to search respondents three residences and several vehicles.A search excuse which is facially valid was issued by the judge after examining the supporting affidavits and documents. The search later on yielded striking quantities of drugs and other evidence. Respondents were unconstipatedtually indicted for federal drug offenses. They then filed motions to suppress the evidence seized by reason of th e sorry ensure. After an evidentiary hearing, the District Court granted the motions in part and concluded that the affidavit was inadequate to establish probable ca utilize.It withal concluded that the officer who applied for a search warrant had acted in good faith but rejected their argument that the ordinal Amendment Exclusionary discover should not apply where the evidence is seized in reasonable and good-faith reliance on a search warrant. The Holding/Decision of the Court The fourth Amendment exclusionary rule should not be restrictively applied so as prevent the prosecution from presenting pieces of evidence obtained by officers who acted in reasonable reliance on a search warrant issued by a detached and neutral judge but ultimately found to be invalid and unsupported by probable cause. Reasons/RationaleIn holding in favor of the police enforcement officers, the Supreme Court ruled that the poop Amendment Exclusionary regularization was not designed to serve as a mortalal constitutional right of the injured person. The use of the evidence taken during an un faithfulnessful search does not necessarily constitute a violation of the Fourth Amendment rather the exclusionary rule merely seeks to sentry duty Fourth Amendment right by deterring officers from conducting unlawful searches. In find out whether the exclusion of evidence is an eliminate sanction, the court weighed the costs and benefits of preventing the use of evidence illegally obtained.According to the court, the upholding of the Fourth Amendment Exclusionary line up has serious repercussions for the truth-finding functions of the judge and the jury. This principle has allowed defendants to go free or receive reduced sentence even if they are guilty. The indiscriminate application of this rule hinders and hampers the efficient and effective administration of justice. Although it was clear that they did not examination the application of the rule that evidence obtained in substa ntial and deliberate violation of the Fourth Amendment should be make inadmissible in court.However, the court thought that it was time to weigh the cost and benefit of the Fourth Amendment Exclusionary Rule and to modify it to permit the admission of evidence obtained in the reasonable and good faith belief that a search or seizure was in accord with the Fourth Amendment. The court reasoned that the search warrant in this case was issued by a judge after application by a veteran(a) narcotics investigator. The affidavits were even reviewed by Deputy District Attorneys before it was submitted to the State Superior Court Judge.It stressed that the warrant issued to the law enforcement officer prior to the search and seizure of the pieces of evidence provides a more reliable safeguard against improper and illegal searches compared to the hurried and often impartial judgment of a law enforcement officer. Indeed, there may be differences in opinion insofar as determining whether there i s probable cause for the upshot of a warrant, but we all agree that search with a warrant is still better than search without a warrant. ,Moreover, according to the Supreme Court, it would not be in keeping with the administration of justice if the law enforcement officers who have diligently conducted their investigation and prepared the necessary affidavits to be punished for the errors of judges. Although it is true that the reason backside the Fourth Amendment Exclusionary Clause is to deter police misconduct and to encourage the law enforcement officers to respect the Fourth Amendment rights of the slew, the rule should not be strictly applied to hinder the enforcement of law and order.To suppress therefore the evidence obtained establish on the reasonable and good-faith reliance on a search warrant would not be in keeping with the spirit and purpose of the Fourth Amendment Exclusionary Rule which is to render inadmissible any evidence obtained in substantial and deliberate violation of the Fourth Amendment. The purpose of this policy is to force the law enforcement officers to respect the peoples Fourth Amendment right not to punish the law enforcement officers for the errors of a judge.But the Supreme Court also clarified that different result will be reached if the warrant in this case was obtained after the law enforcement officers have misled the judge by indicating in the Affidavit submitted to the judge information that the affiant knew to be false or would have known to be false or if the judge gravely abused his discretion in issuing the warrant. In these cases, suppression of the evidence is the appropriate remedy. Suppression may also be the appropriate remedy if the warrant on its face is so defective that it clearly appears that there was no probable cause for its issuance.Concurring Opinion of arbitrator Blackmun Justice Blackmun agrees with the finding of the majority that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment by office rs acting in objectively reasonable reliance on a search warrant issued by a neutral and detached judge need not be excluded. He and stressed that the statements made by them in this case is provisional in nature. This should not be taken as an absolute rule as every case will have to be evaluated in the light of its peculiar fights and circumstances.Dissenting Opinions of Justice Brennan and Justice Marshall In their dissenting opinions, Justice Marshall and Justice Brennan expressed their apprehension about the gradual erosion of the constitutional right of the people under the Fourth Amendment. According to them, this decision which allows the prosecution to present in chief the evidence obtained illegally from a person whose rights have been violated is a signal that the court is breaking away from the requirements of the Fourth Amendment.In my opinion, the dissenting settle fear that time will come when the protection under the Fourth Amendment will merely be an ideal. They f ear that someday this decision will be used as a tool to end the Fourth Amendment. For them, they see the situation as that the issue of constitutional rights is incapable of cost and benefit analysis. They count on that though it is important to put a stop to crime and to convict the guilty, this should be not made at the expense of sacrificing our most cherished rights.