4th Amendment; Dead or Alive? (U.S. v Leon) – FYS 100 – 34: The Rights of the Criminally Accused

In August 1981 police received a tip from an informant, who was described as “unreliable”, that identified Patsy Stewart and Armando Sanchez as drug dealers. Officers began to surveil a theoretical drug operation at an address given to police by the informant. At this house police recognized the car of Ricardo Del Castillo, which led them to Alberto Leon, a drug dealer with a record. The police continued to monitor the operation they suspected was occurring, and, with tips from a second police informant and their collected information, obtained a warrant to search property of the men, which yielded a large amount of drugs. The officer who obtained the warrant was a trusted and proven detective, which will play in more in the opinion of the Court. In trial court the attorneys of Leon argued that the judge had no place to issue the warrant, and that the search conducted was based on unreliable evidence and all evidence should be suppressed, as was typically the case in Fourth Amendment violation cases, and is summed up by the “exclusionary rule” (no information provided by an illegal search may be presented as evidence in court). The trial court found it unreasonable to throw out all the evidence that would incriminate Leon, as there was no intention of wrongdoing by the judge nor the police officer. The Circuit Court found there was a search and seizure violation and reversed the decision. The Supreme Court took the case, and examined whether or not the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule should, based on circumstance, have exceptions so not all evidence is suppressed in a trial that would otherwise have had a guilty verdict.

Justice White wrote the opinion of the court, and is joined by five other Justices. The Court found that there should be, in some cases, use of evidence that was obtained illegally, on the basis that the officers and magistrates were acting in “good faith,” and that there was no intention of wrongdoing. Because the exclusionary rule is in place to deter bad police work or unmoral police work, and the judge issues a warrant based on the information presented and is an equal and unbiased decision, as he has no standing or involvement in the criminal trial, the rule is void in a sense to the magistrate. The Court also argues that the exclusionary rule has no deterrent on illegal police work, such as illegally obtained evidence. This is where I take issue, and is the main point that I concur with from the dissent. Justice Brennan delivered the dissent, which takes issue with the Court’s dismissal of the power of the rule as a deterrent. The rule is an incentive for police to make sure they’ve covered all bases before moving forward with a search or an arrest, because if they don’t then all the hard work put into a case is suppressed, unusable in court as evidence, and a criminal walks free. But, to combat this point, the Court says as long as there was clear intention to follow the warrant or search system correctly, and there was no intentional wrongdoing in the process of obtaining evidence, that the evidence should remain. This point, I can subscribe to. While I think discrediting the exclusionary rule as ineffective is too far, I believe there does need to be some exception for cases like this. Justice Brennan argues that the Fourth Amendment is dead with this ruling. He states that to remove the exclusionary rule would be removing the essence of the Amendment, which is that sometimes our justice system must suffer in order to keep a precedent that protects our liberty and freedom. I agree in that the Fourth Amendment, after this case, was changed, but not dead. The Fourth Amendment was resurrected in a way, in that its definition is fluid, and is up to the interpretation of the Courts to decide how it be enforced. Here, the Court decides to take the law in a more modern context that works better with our current legal system, and by doing so radically changed how the country interprets the Fourth Amendment, and proved that it is open to let reasonability trump long standing legal precedent. Change was needed, and it is satisfying as someone who at some point will most likely be involved in the judicial system, that reason and circumstance are taken into account at its highest level.

Nikolina Dakovic says:

October 24, 2016 at 2:14 pm

You did a great job of discussing the good side and the benefits of the Court’s decision. I do agree with you that there should be the good faith exception in cases in which all parties involved are acting in the good faith while not intentionally trying to be deceitful in the process of obtaining the warrant. Moreover, this type of ruling does get people who have committed the crime behind the bars. However, in your blog post, you haven’t discussed the consequences such ruling might have on the level of power of the officials and judges. Namely, the problem here is that you are assuming that they are always acting in a good faith manner all the time and we have had many cases shown in class that expressed right the opposite of that. What about errors that must happen occasionally in this type of job? Or what about different human motivations and bias that might interfere with their judgment? Even though The Court argues that the magistrates are ”detached and neutral” while issuing the warrant, I am sure there are exceptions to this. We have seen many examples of it in ”Just Mercy” which proves that even though the judges and magistrates should be neutral and impartial when issuing the warrant, there are still many cases when there are not being neutral and impartial. Therefore, in such situations, the good faith actually gives them more power and space to be biased and driven by other motives rather than trying to stay impartial. I think that the solution to this problem might be setting a very clear bar on to what type of situations the exclusionary rule applies to.

Daniel Jones says:

October 26, 2016 at 1:14 am

I disagree with Justice White saying that the court should be able to use some of the illegally obtained evidence because of “good faith”. The reason I disagree with this is it is illegal for a reason. Giving the police that type of power is a outrageous suggestion. The police would have no reason to get a warrant or search anybody legally because the evidence can be used no matter how they get it. The current rule of them having to get the evidence legally or it is worthless makes the police follow the rules as closely as possible, and that is the way it should be.
On the other hand I do agree that the Fourth Amendment isn’t dead. I also agree saying that Justice Brennan is wrong, and that it is like the Fourth Amendment is resurrected in a way giving the court the power to rule it how they see fit. The reason I agree because this is what they are here to do. I am saying they are the best people for the job even when their ruling seems a little off, so giving them the option to rule as a Court how they see the Fourth Amendment in each particular case is fair in my eyes.