Fourth Amendment Exclusionary Rule Takes A Hit

Yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court decided, 5-3, that except in cases of “flagrant misconduct,” evidence seized following an illegal stop need not be suppressed if it turns out that the person stopped happened to have an outstanding warrant. Tejas Bhatt provides an excellent analysis of the decision in Utah v. Strieff on his blog, CT Criminal Law. And Orin Kerr explains the decision over at SCOTUSblog.

2 Comments on “Fourth Amendment Exclusionary Rule Takes A Hit”

  1. james ralls says:

    I usually disagree with cutting back the exclusionary rule, but I think agree with this result, if not the reasoning. If there’s a warrant, then there’s probable cause to arrest. If cops know about the warrant, and what the suspect looks like, they can arrest him on sight. Since knowledge of one officer can normally be imputed to others, the fact that the particular cop here didn’t know about the warrant or the suspect’s identity shouldn’t matter. So, cops should be able to arrest, and search, suspects even though they erroneously stop them without probable cause or reasonable suspicion, because there is in fact probable cause to arrest.

  2. In my opinion, I think arresting a person seems to be unlawful if you don’t have an exact warrant or even an evidence. I am not belong to the law abiding citizen but I have a very close and official family friend which is always being here to us whatever issues we have especially in this area.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s