This document is a page from a legal filing, dated April 16, 2021, that discusses the application of the Fourth Amendment's exclusionary rule. It cites numerous federal court cases, including from the Supreme Court, to argue that suppressing evidence is a 'last resort' intended to deter deliberate, reckless, or grossly negligent police misconduct. The text emphasizes the 'good-faith' exception, particularly when law enforcement acts in reasonable reliance on a search warrant, suggesting that suppression is generally not warranted in such cases.
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Williams | Party in a court case |
Mentioned in the case citation 'United States v. Williams, No. 10 Cr. 622 (ADS), 2018 WL 4623017, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. Sep...
|
| Eldred | Party in a court case |
Mentioned in the case citation 'United States v. Eldred, 933 F.3d 110, 118 (2d Cir. 2019)'.
|
| Herring | Party in a court case |
Mentioned in the case citation 'Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135, 141 (2009)'.
|
| Rosa | Party in a court case |
Mentioned in the case citation 'United States v. Rosa, 626 F.3d 56, 64 (2d Cir. 2010)'.
|
| Raymonda | Party in a court case |
Mentioned in the case citation 'United States v. Raymonda, 780 F.3d 105, 117-18 (2d Cir. 2015)'.
|
| Stokes | Party in a court case |
Mentioned in the case citation 'United States v. Stokes, 733 F.3d 438, 443 (2d Cir. 2013)'.
|
| Green | Party in a court case |
Mentioned in the case citation 'United States v. Green, 981 F.3d 945, 957 (11th Cir. 2020)'.
|
| Leon | Party in a court case |
Mentioned in the case citation 'United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 922 (1984)'.
|
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Supreme Court | government agency |
Mentioned as advising district courts on when to suppress evidence.
|
| United States | government agency |
Party in numerous cited court cases (e.g., United States v. Williams, Herring v. United States).
|
| E.D.N.Y. | government agency |
Abbreviation for the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, cited in the 'United States v...
|
| 2d Cir. | government agency |
Abbreviation for the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, cited in multiple cases (Eldred, Rosa, Ra...
|
| 11th Cir. | government agency |
Abbreviation for the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, cited in the 'United States v. Green' c...
|
| Government | government agency |
Mentioned as having the burden to establish good faith in the context of search warrants.
|
| DOJ | government agency |
Appears in the footer identifier 'DOJ-OGR-00003048', likely standing for Department of Justice.
|
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
The Eastern District of New York, mentioned in the citation for United States v. Williams.
|
"‘[T]he exclusionary rule is not an individual right and applies only where it results in appreciable deterrence.’"Source
"[t]o trigger the exclusionary rule, police conduct must be sufficiently deliberate that exclusion can meaningfully deter it, and sufficiently culpable that such deterrence is worth the price paid by the justice system."Source
"exclusion should be a “last resort” rather than a “first impulse.”"Source
"The exclusionary rule should be used only where law enforcement “‘exhibit[s] deliberate, reckless, or grossly negligent disregard for Fourth Amendment rights.’”"Source
"It follows that when officers act with ‘an objectively reasonable good-faith belief that their conduct is lawful’—i.e., by acting in reasonable reliance on a warrant, statute, or court order—the exclusionary rule does not apply because there is little, if any, deterrence benefit in such circumstances."Source
"[s]earches pursuant to a warrant will rarely require any deep inquiry into reasonableness, for a warrant issued by a magistrate normally suffices to establish good faith"Source
Complete text extracted from the document (2,276 characters)
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document