U.S. Supreme Court Stresses Police Intent When Excluding Evidence
This summer, the Supreme Court added another exception to the exclusionary rule in its Davis v. U.S. opinion.

January 29, 2012 /24-7PressRelease/ -- U.S. Supreme Court Stresses Police Intent When Excluding Evidence

With roots in century-old case law, the exclusionary rule was fashioned by courts in response to the federal constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and seizures guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment. The exclusionary rule holds that prosecutors cannot introduce into court evidence obtained in violation of an individual's Fourth Amendment rights. The Supreme Court originally provided this sanction as a deterrent against future constitutional violations by law enforcement.

In practice, however, the exclusionary rule is not quite so simple. Case law has split hairs about the limits of the rule's application and created complicated exceptions. This summer, the Supreme Court added another exception to the exclusionary rule in its Davis v. U.S. opinion.

Facts of the Case

In April of 2007, Willie Gene Davis was a passenger in a vehicle stopped by Alabama law enforcement. Officers arrested Davis for providing a false name to police and the driver for drunk driving. Both were placed in squad cars. Police then searched the vehicle and found a gun in Davis' jacket. Based on this evidence, Davis was subsequently charged with felony possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.

At the time of the vehicle search, the law in the federal Middle District of Alabama allowed police to conduct a legal search of a car after the occupants were arrested. That their search in the Davis matter was within the applicable law in effect at the time is undisputed.

The legal issue arose after the Supreme Court decision of Arizona v. Gant set out a different standard that would have made the Davis car search unconstitutional. The issue in Davis became whether to apply Gant retroactively and exclude the Davis evidence, or "whether to apply the exclusionary rule when the police conduct a search in objectively reasonable reliance on binding judicial precedent" in effect at that time, even if that precedent changes later.

Weakening of Exclusionary Rule

Justice Samuel Alito wrote a forceful opinion for the majority, holding that the exclusionary rule should not be applied to the Davis evidence and that it was admissible in his criminal trial. Justice Alito emphasized that the only purpose of the rule is to deter future police violations of the Fourth Amendment, and not to redress a criminal defendant's Fourth Amendment violation.

The opinion points out that the officers followed the law at the time and questions how penalizing that good behavior could be a future deterrent of unlawful police action. Justice Alito requires police "culpability" be at issue for the exclusionary rule to apply. He also writes that to exclude this evidence would "come at a high cost to both the truth and the public safety."

The two dissenting justices would have applied Gant and excluded the evidence. They express concern that the majority opinion "will undermine the exclusionary rule." Similar fears about Davis weakening the rule are being expressed in the criminal defense community.

Anyone accused of a crime should retain an experienced criminal defense lawyer who understands the intricacies of the exclusionary rule and can forcefully advocate for limiting the evidence introduced at trial.

Press Release Contact Information:

FL Web Advantage