User:Marissa424/Good-faith exception

Good-faith Exception
In United States constitutional law, the good-faith exception (also good-faith doctrine) is a judicially created legal doctrine that provides an exemption to the exclusionary rule.

The exemption allows evidence collected in violation of privacy rights as interpreted from the Fourth Amendment to be admitted at trial if police officers acting in good faith relied upon a defective search warrant — that is, they had reason to believe their actions were legal (measured under the reasonable person test). The good-faith exception cannot be used if police obtain a warrant through direct misconduct; such as being misleading or misrepresenting facts.

The rule was established in the two companion cases decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1984: United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984), and Massachusetts v. Sheppard, 468 U.S. 981 (1984). The exception permits the courts to consider the mental state of the police officer.

Not all states follow the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule, such as New York in People v. Bigelow, 488 N.E.2d 451 (N.Y. 1985).]

Reasonableness
Since the inception of the good-faith doctrine, reasonableness has been a critical prong. In the case United States v. Leon, the Court established that the reasonableness standard is objective rather than subjective. The Court took this position because it believed that objective reasonableness is achieved by an officer having a reasonable understanding of what the law prohibits.

An example of the inquiry into reasonableness is the case Davis v. United States. In Davis, the Court decided that the exclusionary rule does not apply where police reasonably relied on binding appellate precedent. In other words, the Court said that evidence obtained through a warrantless search is admissible if police reasonably relied on binding appellate precedent.

Davis, was decided in 2011. More recent publications regarding the reasonableness aspect of the good-faith exception suggest that the Supreme Court's limitation of the exclusionary rule (focused on deterring illegal police behavior) may give a broader scope to what becomes reasonable under the good-faith exception.

Exclusionary rule
The exclusionary rule, created to safeguard the Fourth Amendment, excludes or suppresses any evidence obtained in violation of a person's Fourth Amendment rights.EXCLUSIONARY RULE, Black's Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019)

The exclusionary rule is powerful because it protects rights established by the United States Constitution through the Fourth Amendment. However, in the case Herring v. United States, the Court held that the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule still applied when there was a clerical error by police in maintaining records in the warrant system. For example, if the police search a person's home without probable cause during a warrantless search, any evidence obtained during that search may be suppressed.

One primary purpose of the exclusionary rule is to deter unreasonable searches and seizures. Another critical purpose the rule has is to assure the American people that the government is upholding their constitutional rights.

The exclusionary rule is powerful because it protects rights established by the United States Constitution through the Fourth Amendment. However, in the case Herring v. United States, the Court held that the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule still applied when there was a clerical error by police in maintaining records in the warrant system. Here, the good-faith exception prevails over the exclusionary rule because the clerical error did not impact the Police's reasonable belief that they had a proper warrant to conduct a lawful search.

Burden of proof
Good-faith exception

The state has the burden of proof when attempting to admit evidence through the good-faith doctrine. The state must show that law enforcement personnel acted in complete good faith in executing an unlawful search or seizure - meaning that any underlying mistake that caused the search to be unlawful must not have been the result of any action taken by law enforcement personnel.

Exclusionary Rule

The person attempting to suppress evidence has the burden of proof. In other words, the person attempting to invoke the exclusionary rule must show that the incriminating evidence would not have been obtained without the illegal search and seizure.

Limitation
The good-faith exception is not all encompassing. The exception cannot apply when law enforcement misrepresents the truth or is misleading to obtain the warrant. If a police officer acquires a warrant by lying, the defendant must be granted an evidentiary hearing (known as a Franks hearing).

Franks Hearing: A Franks hearing gives the defendant the right to challenge any evidence obtained through a warrant granted by false statements. The Franks standard was established in Franks v. Delaware.

The defendant has the burden of proof when brining a Franks challenge. The defendant must establish proof by a preponderance of the evidence. To obtain a Franks hearing, the defendant must: "[make] a preliminary showing that: 1) The affiant knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, included a false statement in the warrant affidavit; and, 2) that the allegedly false statement was necessary to a finding of probable cause."Once the defendant can show the aforementioned terms, the court is obligated to give said defendant an evidentiary hearing (Franks hearing) regarding any evidence obtained during the alleged unlawful search.