Brief of US v. Leon

Should the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule include as one of its exceptions the evidence obtained by officers acting in reasonable reliance on a search warrant issued by a detached and neutral judge but found to be unsupported by probable cause? Statement of Facts: The Burbank Police Department, upon receiving tips from informants, conducted a drug trafficking investigation upon the respondents. Extensive surveillance operation was made on respondent’s three residences and several cars. After sufficient evidence was gathered an officer prepared an application for a warrant to search respondent’s three residences and several vehicles.A search warrant which is facially valid was issued by the judge after examining the supporting affidavits and documents. The search later on yielded large quantities of drugs and other evidence. Respondents were eventually indicted for federal drug offenses. They then filed motions to suppress the evidence seized by reason of the defecti ve warrant. After an evidentiary hearing, the District Court granted the motions in part and concluded that the affidavit was insufficient to establish probable cause.It also concluded that the officer who applied for a search warrant had acted in good faith but rejected their argument that the Fourth Amendment Exclusionary Rule 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 law enforcement officers, the Supreme Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment Exclusionary Rule was not designed to serve as a personal constitutional right of t he injured person. The use of the evidence taken during an unlawful search does not necessarily constitute a violation of the Fourth Amendment rather the exclusionary rule merely seeks to safeguard Fourth Amendment right by deterring officers from conducting unlawful searches. In determining whether the exclusion of evidence is an appropriate 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 Rule 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 question the application of the rule that evidence obtained in substantial and deliberate violation of the Fourth Amendmen t 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 case was issued by a judge after application by a seasoned 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 is probable cause for the issuance of a warrant, but we a ll 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 behind 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 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 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 people’s 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 Justice Blackmun Justice Blackmun agrees with the finding of the majority that evidence obtained 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 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 Judges fear 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 t o 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 crime and to convict the guilty, this should be not made at the expense of sacrificing our most cherished rights.