Exclusionary Rule and Good Faith Exception

Mapp v. Ohio

(Newly Established with this case) Evidence obtained through an unreasonable search and seizure in violation of the 4th amendment does not automatically incorporate the first eith amendments of the Bill of Right against the states.

United States v. Leon

Evidence obtained in reasonable, good-faith reliance on a facially valid search warrant is not subject to the 4th amendments exclusionary rule, even if the warrant is later deemed defective - Officer must have a valid remedy as far as they know - The judge must have been a separate/impartial from the case.

Hudson v. Michigan

Evidence will not be excluded as a result of a failure by police to "knock and announce," upon expecting a search warrant because the interest violated have to do with avoiding surprising a residence and provoking violence and have nothing to do with the seizure of evidence.

Wolf v. Colorado

It is a violation of the due process clause of the 14th amendment for state actors to gather evidence through unreasonable searches and seizures, but such evidence need not be excluded from state criminal proceedings.

State v. Heien

Officer can detain a person under reasonable suspicion they have committed a crime, based upon the good faith mistake of the law (tail lights) In this case the defendant was arrested because he had a single tail light out. However, this was not against the law.

State v. Carter

Under the judicial integrity theory, our constitution demands the exclusion of illegally seized evidence. The courts cannot condone or participate in the protection of those who violate the constitutional rights of others.

Herring v. United States

Where police personnel act negligently, but not recklessly, and lead an officer to reasonably believe an arrest warrant exits, the evidence obtained pursuant to that unlawful arrest remains admissible.