LEGAL

RESEARCH

Use of Force
- Generally
The Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel
- Attachment of Right
- Confrontation Clause
- Crime Specfific
  - Texas v. Cobb
  - Maine v. Moulton
- Critical Stages - Lineups
  - United States v. Wade
  - Gilbert v. California
- Critical Stages - Questioning
- Right to Counsel
  - Gideon v. Wainwright
  - Massiah v. United States
The Fourth Amendment: What is a Search?
- Abandoned Property
  - Abel v. United States
  - California v. Greenwood
- Applies to Government Activities Only
- Foreign Searches
  - United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez
- Generally
- Open Fields & Curtilage
- Private Intrusions
  - Walter v. United States
  - United States v. Jacobsen
- Reasonable Expectation of Privacy
- Third Party Control
The Forth Amendment: What is a Seizure?
- Arrests-Arrest Warrants
- Arrests-Generally
  - Atwater v. City of Lago Vista
- Arrests-Premises
- Arrests-Third Party Premises
  - Pembaur v. Cincinnati
  - Steagald v. United States
- Generally
- Stops-Generally
- Stops-Terry/Traffic Stops
The Fifth Amendment
- Compelled
- Due Process
- Fourth Amendement Violations
- Holder of the Privelege
- Immunity
- Introductory Issues
- Miranda - Custody
- Miranda - Generally
- Miranda - Goverment Employees
- Miranda - Interrogation
  - Pennsylvania v. Muniz
  - Rhode Island v. Innis
- Miranda - Police
  - Arizona v. Mauro
  - Illinois v. Perkins
- Miranda - Right to Counsel
- Miranda - Right to Silence
- Miranda - Waiver
- Miranda Exceptions
  - New York v. Quarles
  - Harris v. New York
- Testimonial Evidence
- Voluntary
Search Warrants
- Establishing P.C. in Affidavit
- Neutral and Detached Magistrate
  - Lo-Ji Sales, Inc. v. New York
  - Connelly v. Georgia
- Probable Cause - Required
  - Winston v. Lee
  - Byars v. United States
- Serving the Warrant - Knock and Announce
- Serving the Warrant - Person at the Premises
- Serving the Warrant - Related Issues
- With Particularity
Search Warrant Exceptions - P.C. Not Needed
- Consent
- Frisk
- Inspections - Border Inspections
  - United States v. Flores-Montano
  - United States v. Ramsey
- Inspections - Parolees
  - Samson v. California
  - United States v. Knights
- Inspections - Special Needs
- Inspections - Structures
- Inspections - Vehicles
- Inventories
- Search Incident to Arrest
  - United States v. Chadwick
- Search Incident to Arrest - Alcohol Test
  - Birchfield v. North Dakota
- Search Incident to Arrest - Cell Phones
  - Riley v. California
- Search Incident to Arrest - Persons
- Search Incident to Arrest - Premises
- Search Incident to Arrest - Vehicles
Search Warrant Exceptions - P.C. Needed
- Destruction of Evidence
- Emergency Scenes
- Hot Pursuit
- Mobile Vehicles
- Plain View
Related Search and Seizure Issues
- Officer's Intent
- Other Issues
Other Cases
- Generally
Liability
- Brady Material
- Generally
Levels of Suspicion
- Probable Cause
- Reasonable Suspicion
Fourth Amendment - Exclusionary Rule
- Exceptions - Attenuation
  - Utah v. Strieff
- Exceptions - Good Faith Exceptions
- Exceptions - Impeachement
- Exceptions - Independent Source
  - Murray v. United States
- Exceptions - Inevitable Discovery
  - Nix v. Williams
- Exceptions - No Standing to Object
- Exceptions - Other Hearings
  - Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole v. Scott
  - United States v. Calandra
- Fruit of the Poisonus Tree
- Origins

Exceptions - Good Faith Exceptions

Illinois v. Krull

Facts

A state statute, as it existed in 1981, required licensed motor vehicle and vehicular parts sellers to permit state officials to inspect certain records. Pursuant to the statute, a police officer entered the defendant’s wrecking yard and asked to inspect records of vehicle purchases. The defendant stated that the records could not be found but gave the officer a list of approximately five purchases. The officer received permission from the defendant to look at the cars in the yard. He discovered that three were stolen and a fourth had its identification number removed. The officer seized the cars and arrested the defendant. An appellant court subsequently held that the statute was unconstitutional because it allowed too much discretion in the officers conducting the examinations.

Issue

Whether the exclusionary rule commands the suppression of the evidence?

Held

No. The Fourth Amendment’s exclusionary rule does not apply to evidence obtained by the government who acted in objectively reasonable reliance upon a statute.

Discussion

The purpose of the exclusionary rule is to discourage officers from engaging in unreasonable searches and seizures. The application of the exclusionary rule in this case would not affect future police misconduct. Officers conducting such searches were simply fulfilling their responsibility to enforce the statute as written. If a statute is not clearly unconstitutional, reviewing courts cannot expect officers to question the judgment of the legislature that passed the law.

Applying the exclusionary rule to deter legislative misconduct is ineffective. There is also no indication that the exclusion of evidence seized pursuant to a statute subsequently declared unconstitutional would affect the enactment of similar laws. Law enforcement officers, not legislators, are the focus of the rule.

Citation

480 U.S. 340, 107 S. Ct. 1160 (1987)

LEGAL

Use of Force

Generally

The Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel

Attachment of Right

Confrontation Clause

Crime Specfific

Critical Stages - Lineups

Critical Stages - Questioning

Right to Counsel

The Fourth Amendment: What is a Search?

Abandoned Property

Applies to Government Activities Only

Foreign Searches

Generally

Open Fields & Curtilage

Private Intrusions

Reasonable Expectation of Privacy

Third Party Control

The Forth Amendment: What is a Seizure?

Arrests-Arrest Warrants

Arrests-Generally

Arrests-Premises

Arrests-Third Party Premises

Generally

Stops-Generally

Stops-Terry/Traffic Stops

The Fifth Amendment

Compelled

Due Process

Fourth Amendement Violations

Holder of the Privelege