Exclusionary Rule - Warrants, Searches & Seizures - North Carolina
When a search violates the Fourth Amendment, the fruits thereof are inadmissible under the exclusionary rule described as:
". . .a judicially created remedy designed to safeguard Fourth Amendment rights generally through its deterrent effect." See United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 348 (1974); see also Mapp v. Ohio
Good Faith Exception
The stated purpose of the Exclusionary Rule is a deterrence against Law Enforcement for continued abridgements of the Fourt Amendment to the United States Constitution, as applied to the States under the Fourteenth Amenment. The Court writes, ". . .deterrence objective 'is not achieved through the suppression of evidence obtained by 'an officer acting with objective good faith' within the scope of a search warrant issued by a magistrate.'"
"[A] court should not suppress the fruits of a search conducted under the authority
of a warrant, even a 'subsequently invalidated' warrant, unless 'a reasonably well trained officer would have known that the search was illegal despite the magistrate's authorization."
Primary Opinion - Ruling
We conclude that the objectively reasonable officer would not rely on a warrant application so devoid of necessary information. Moreover, because reliance on the warrant was not objectively reasonable, we find that the good faith exception recognized in Leon is inapplicable.
Officer May Reasonable Rely on Warrant Issued by Magistrate, Except:
Usually, "'a warrant issued by a magistrate . . . suffices to establish' that a law enforcement officer has 'acted in good faith in conducting the search.'" Leon, 468 U.S. at 922 (quoting nited States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798, 823 n.32 (1982)). Accordingly, searches executed "'pursuant to a warrant will rarely require any deep inquiry into reasonableness.'" Id. (quoting Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 267 (1983) (White, J., concurring in the judgment)). However, there are four circumstances in which the Leon good faith exception will not apply: (1) "if the magistrate or judge in issuing a warrant was misled by information in an affidavit that the affiant knew was false or would have known was false except for his reckless disregard of the truth;" (2) if "the issuing magistrate wholly abandoned hisjudicial role in the manner condemned in Lo-Ji Sales, Inc. v. New York, 442 U.S. 319, 99 S.Ct. 2319, 60 L.Ed.2d 920 (1979)";
Officer Reliance - Limiting Factors to Good Faith Exception (cont'd)
(3) if the affidavit supporting the warrant is "so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render official belief in its existence entirely unreasonable;" and (4) if under the circumstances of the case the warrant is "so facially deficient-i.e., in failing to particularize the place to be searched or the things to be seized-that the executing
officers cannot reasonably presume it to be valid."
DUNCAN, Circuit Judge, concurring separately and concurring:
. . .it is the totality of irregularities and questionable actions. . .that ultimately tips the scales in favor of reversal and provides guidance for law enforcement and the district courts going forward.
NOTE: There may be other facts and law relevant to the issue. Readers should not base any decision on the;information provided herein and are specifically advised no client-lawyer relationship has been established. Put simply, seek the advice of competent counsel without delay to discuss the particular aspects of the case, factual scenario and historical background
WHY: The content herein is provided for educational purposes and should not be inferred as applying only to DWI / DUI criminal defense. In fact, it may be equally relevant to claims of personal injury involving accidents and the consumption of alcohol or more simply, to the daily practice of law. Bill Powers lectures on such issues on a regular basis with the intent to educate, to be fair, to be accurate and to encourage, open, honest and scientific discussion on the subject.
Bill Powers does not serve as legal counsel to the Defendant at issue here.
Our Rating is calculated using information the lawyer has included on
their profile in addition to the information we collect from state
bar associations and other organizations that license legal
professionals. Attorneys who claim their profiles and provide Avvo
with more information tend to have a higher rating than those who do
What determines Avvo Rating?Experience & background
Years licensed, work experience, education
Legal community recognition
Peer endorsements, associations, awards
Legal thought leadership
Publications, speaking engagements
This lawyer was disciplined by a state licensing authority in .
Disciplinary information may not be comprehensive, or updated. We recommend that you always check a lawyer's disciplinary status with their respective state bar association before hiring them.