| Appellate Review and the Exclusionary Rule |
| Zack Bray [View as PDF] |
|
113 Yale L.J. 1143 (2004) Today, application of the exclusionary rule to evidence obtained in reliance on a potentially invalid search warrant is governed by the Supreme Court's holding in United States v. Leon. Leon instructs courts to admit evidence obtained on the basis of a potentially invalid search warrant, so long as the executing law enforcement officers "'acted in good faith'" and "in objectively reasonable reliance on . . . [the] warrant." According to Leon, conduct of the judge or magistrate who issued the warrant cannot provide grounds for suppression of evidence unless the defendant can show that the issuing judge or magistrate "wholly abandoned his judicial role." The scope and application of the exclusionary rule have always bred disagreement. For some, the rule is an unnecessary impediment that allows guilty criminals to escape conviction on procedural technicalities. For others, it is an indispensable substantive component of the Fourth Amendment's protections against unnecessary search and seizure. Set against the backdrop of this historic conflict, Leon can be seen as a great achievement, one that has freed courts from "a difficult dilemma." Yet nearly twenty years later, Leon remains an uneasy compromise--and a source of enduring controversy. Reforming appellate review of the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule along the lines suggested in United States v. Koerth would eliminate a significant problem: the failure of post-Leon jurisprudence to reach underlying probable cause issues in exclusionary rule cases. Part I of this Comment describes this problem and discusses the nature of the Koerth reform. Part II explains why Koerth's "substantial basis" test is preferable to current practice. Part III responds to possible criticisms of the Koerth approach, including the objection that Koerth is inconsistent with Leon. |