Brief of US v. Leon

Should the stern Amendment riddanceary master include as one of its exceptions the establish obtained by officers acting in solid groundable reliance on a lookup reassert issued by a detached and unbiased hazard but found to be unsubstantiated by equiprobable nonplus? Statement of Facts The Burbank Police Department, upon receiving tips from informants, conducted a drug trafficking investigation upon the respondents. Extensive care operation was made on respondents three residences and several(prenominal)(prenominal) cars. After sufficient license was gathered an officer prepared an practise for a warrant to search respondents three residences and several vehicles.A search warrant which is facially valid was issued by the judge later on examining the supporting affidavits and documents. The search later on yielded large quantities of drugs and other differentiate. Respondents were at last indicted for federal drug offenses. They then filed motions to suppress the depict seized by reason of the defective warrant. After an evidentiary hearing, the District Court granted the motions in part and concluded that the affidavit was insufficient to establish probable ca apply.It as well concluded that the officer who applied for a search warrant had acted in nigh(a) faith but rejected their argument that the Fourth Amendment Exclusionary pattern should non 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 go on 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 law en reapment officers, the controlling Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment Exclusionary precept was not designed to go as a personal constitutional right of the injured person. The use of the evidence taken during an unlawful search does not necessarily take a crap a violation of the Fourth Amendment rather the exclusionary rule merely tallyks to caution Fourth Amendment right by deterring officers from conducting unlawful searches. In determining whether the exclusion of evidence is an appropriate sanction, the lawcourt weighed the costs and realizes of preventing the use of evidence illegally obtained.According to the court, the upholding of the Fourth Amendment Exclusionary Rule has serious repercussions for the truth-finding functions of the judge and the jury. This principle has allowed defendants to go detached or receive reduced sentence even if they are guilty. The indiscriminating application of this rule hinders and hampers the efficient and effective administration of justice. Although it was clear that they did not question the application of the rule that evi dence obtained in substantial and thrifty violation of the Fourth Amendment should be made 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 type was issued by a judge after application by a seasoned narcotics investigator. The affidavits were even reviewed by Deputy District Attorneys in advance 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 legitimate safeguard against improper and illegal searches compared to the hurried and often impartial feeling of a law enforcement officer. Indeed, there may be differences in printing insofar as determining whether there is probable cause for the event 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 bedevil diligently conducted their investigation and prepared the necessary affidavits to be punished for the errors of judges. Although it is adjust that the reason behind the Fourth Amendment Exclusionary Clause is to deter police muck up and to encourage the law enforcement officers to respect the Fourth Amendment rights of the people, the rule should not be strictly applied to hinder the enforcement of law and order.To suppress therefore the evidence obtained based on the reasonable and good-faith reliance on a search warrant would not be in keeping with the spirit and pop the question of the Fourth Amendment Exclusionary Rule which is to render inadmissible any evidence o btained 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 pure that different result leave behind be reached if the warrant in this outcome was obtained after the law enforcement officers have misled the judge by indicating in the malediction submitted to the judge information that the affiant knew to be false or would have cognise to be false or if the judge gravely abused his free will in issuing the warrant. In these cases, suppression of the evidence is the appropriate remedy. inhibition 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 Justice Blackmun Justice Blackmun agrees with the finding of the majority that evidence obtain ed in violation of the Fourth Amendment by officers acting in objectively reasonable reliance on a search warrant issued by a neutral and detached judge need not be excluded. He however stressed that the statements made by them in this case is provisional in nature. This should not be taken as an compulsive 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 near 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 intercommunicate that the court is breaking away from the requirements of the Fourth Amendment.In my opinion, the dissenting Judges vexation that time will come when the protection under the Fourth Amendment will merely be an ideal. They fear that someday this decision will be used as a tool to destroy the Fourth Amendment. For them, they see the situation as that the issue of constitutional rights is incapable of cost and benefit analysis. They think that though it is important to put a stop to offense and to convict the guilty, this should be not made at the expense of sacrificing our roughly cherished rights.