Supreme Court Holds Exclusionary Rule Does Not Apply When Police Conduct A Search In Objectively Reasonable Reliance On Binding Appellate Precedent

 

In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court decided an issue that has split the lower courts over whether the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule of the Fourth Amendment applies to a search authorized by precedent at the time of the search that is subsequently ruled unconstitutional. The Fourth Amendment protects the right to be free from "unreasonable searches and seizures," but it is silent about how this right is to be enforced. As a result, the Supreme Court created the exclusionary rule, a deterrent sanction that bars the prosecution from introducing evidence obtained by way of a Fourth Amendment violation. The question here is whether to apply this sanction when the police conduct a search in compliance with binding precedent that is later overruled. The Court held that "[b]ecause suppression would do nothing to deter police misconduct in these circumstances, and because it would come at a high cost to both the truth and the public safety, we hold that searches conducted in objectively reasonable reliance on binding appellate precedent are not subject to the exclusionary rule."

In this case, Davis v. U.S., police arrested the defendant-petitioner, Davis, after a routine traffic stop. The police searched Davis's car. Davis was convicted for the unlawful possession of a firearm as a result of evidence obtained from that search. During the pendency of Davis's appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, the Supreme Court overturned the Eleventh Circuit case precedent relied upon by law enforcement on Davis's search in the case of Arizona v. Gant, 129 S. Ct. 1710 (2009). On appeal in Davis v. U.S., the government argued that the exclusionary rule should not retroactively apply to searches conducted in good-faith reliance on precedent. The U.S. Court of Appeals held that because the search was objectively reasonable under then-binding precedent, suppressing the gun found in Davis's jacket would serve no deterrent purpose. The U.S. Court of Appeals refused to apply the exclusionary rule in Davis v. U.S. based on the good-faith exception that allows the use of evidence obtained in reasonable reliance on well-settled evidence. Thus, the U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed Davis's conviction.

In deciding the issue, the Supreme Court turned to the exclusionary rule's sole purpose, which "is to deter future Fourth Amendment violations. Starting with United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984), the Supreme Court created a good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule of the Fourth Amendment. Leon held that the exclusionary rule does not apply when the police conduct a search in "objectively reasonable reliance" on a warrant later held invalid. The error in such a case rests with the issuing magistrate, not the police officer, and "punish[ing] the errors of judges" is not the office of the exclusionary rule. Thus, under the good-faith exemption to the exclusionary rule, evidence collected that violates the Fourth Amendment is admitted into trial if law enforcement "acted in the objectively reasonable belief that their conduct did not violate the Fourth Amendment." The Court has expanded the good-faith exception over time, most recently in Herring v. United States, __ U.S.__, 129 S.Ct. 695 (2009). The Supreme Court expanded the exclusionary rule in Herring when it held that the police conduct at issue, which was the result of negligently maintained police records, was neither "sufficiently deliberate that exclusion [could] meaningfully deter it" nor "sufficiently culpable that such deterrence [would be] worth the price paid by the justice system."

Applying this precedent, the Court determined that although the search in this case turned out to be unconstitutional under Gant, Davis concedes that the officers' conduct was in strict compliance with then-binding Circuit law and was not culpable in any way. The Court noted that in 27 years of practice under Leon's good-faith exception, the Court has "never applied" the exclusionary rule to suppress evidence obtained as a result of nonculpable, innocent police conduct and "should not be applied to deter objectively reasonable law enforcement activity." Therefore, under the Supreme Court's exclusionary-rule precedents, the Court held that "the acknowledged absence of police culpability dooms Davis's claim" and evidence obtained during a search conducted in reasonable reliance on binding precedent is not subject to the exclusionary rule. Further, the Court was not persuaded by arguments that other considerations should prevent the good-faith exception from applying in this case. Thus, the Court affirmed the Court of Appeals decision.

The case is Davis v. U.S., No. 09-11328, decided on June 16, 2011. To view the full decision, click here. 


Fed Agent