DOJ-OGR-00003048.jpg

758 KB

Extraction Summary

8
People
7
Organizations
1
Locations
9
Events
0
Relationships
6
Quotes

Document Information

Type: Legal document
File Size: 758 KB
Summary

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.

People (8)

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)'.

Organizations (7)

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.

Timeline (9 events)

1984
Ruling in the case of United States v. Leon.
Supreme Court
2009
Ruling in the case of Herring v. United States.
Supreme Court
2010
Ruling in the case of United States v. Rosa.
2d Cir.
2013
Ruling in the case of United States v. Stokes.
2d Cir.
2015
Ruling in the case of United States v. Raymonda.
2d Cir.
2018-09-26
Ruling in the case of United States v. Williams.
E.D.N.Y.
2019
Ruling in the case of United States v. Eldred.
2d Cir.
2020
Ruling in the case of United States v. Green.
11th Cir.
2021-04-16
Document 204 was filed in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE.

Locations (1)

Location Context
The Eastern District of New York, mentioned in the citation for United States v. Williams.

Key Quotes (6)

"‘[T]he exclusionary rule is not an individual right and applies only where it results in appreciable deterrence.’"
Source
— United States v. Eldred (quoting Herring v. United States) (Explaining the purpose and limitation of the exclusionary rule.)
DOJ-OGR-00003048.jpg
Quote #1
"[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
— Herring v. United States (Defining the conditions under which the exclusionary rule should be applied.)
DOJ-OGR-00003048.jpg
Quote #2
"exclusion should be a “last resort” rather than a “first impulse.”"
Source
— United States v. Rosa (Characterizing the application of the exclusionary rule as an exceptional measure.)
DOJ-OGR-00003048.jpg
Quote #3
"The exclusionary rule should be used only where law enforcement “‘exhibit[s] deliberate, reckless, or grossly negligent disregard for Fourth Amendment rights.’”"
Source
— United States v. Raymonda (quoting United States v. Stokes) (Stating the high standard of police misconduct required to trigger the exclusionary rule.)
DOJ-OGR-00003048.jpg
Quote #4
"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
— United States v. Green (Explaining the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule.)
DOJ-OGR-00003048.jpg
Quote #5
"[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
— United States v. Leon (Describing the strong presumption of good faith when officers act pursuant to a warrant.)
DOJ-OGR-00003048.jpg
Quote #6

Full Extracted Text

Complete text extracted from the document (2,276 characters)

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 114 of 239
omitted)). “As the rule seeks to deter future Fourth Amendment violations, the Supreme Court advises district courts to only suppress evidence where it serves such a purpose.” United States v. Williams, No. 10 Cr. 622 (ADS), 2018 WL 4623017, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 26, 2018) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). “‘[T]he exclusionary rule is not an individual right and applies only where it results in appreciable deterrence.’” United States v. Eldred, 933 F.3d 110, 118 (2d Cir. 2019) (quoting Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135, 141 (2009)); see also Herring, 555 U.S. at 144 (concluding that “[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.”). As a result, exclusion should be a “last resort” rather than a “first impulse.” United States v. Rosa, 626 F.3d 56, 64 (2d Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The exclusionary rule should be used only where law enforcement “‘exhibit[s] deliberate, reckless, or grossly negligent disregard for Fourth Amendment rights.’” United States v. Raymonda, 780 F.3d 105, 117-18 (2d Cir. 2015) (quoting United States v. Stokes, 733 F.3d 438, 443 (2d Cir. 2013)); see also United States v. Green, 981 F.3d 945, 957 (11th Cir. 2020) (“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.” (citations omitted)).
In the context of search warrants, suppression will generally not be warranted where the evidence at issue was “obtained in objectively reasonable reliance on a subsequently invalidated search warrant.” United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 922 (1984). As a result, although the burden is on the Government to establish good faith, “[s]earches pursuant to a warrant will rarely require any deep inquiry into reasonableness, for a warrant issued by a magistrate normally suffices to
87
DOJ-OGR-00003048

Discussion 0

Sign in to join the discussion

No comments yet

Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document