Ciminal Law: Exlusionary Rule United States V. Williams

Nova Law Review, Sep 2017

A PDF file should load here. If you do not see its contents the file may be temporarily unavailable at the journal website or you do not have a PDF plug-in installed and enabled in your browser.

Alternatively, you can download the file locally and open with any standalone PDF reader:

https://nsuworks.nova.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1736&context=nlr

Ciminal Law: Exlusionary Rule United States V. Williams

Art. 10 Nova Law Journal Ciminal Law: Exlusionary Rule United States V. Williams - 1980 Article 10 Copyright c 1980 by the authors. Nova Law Review is produced by The Berkeley Electronic Press (bepress). https://nsuworks.nova.edu/nlr V. Williams Joseph R. Dawson Then “good faith” exception to the exclusionary rule recently received explicit impetus from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Criminal Law: Exclusionary Rule United States v. Williams The "good faith" exception to the exclusionary rule recently received explicit impetus from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Meeting en banc,' a thirteen judge majority held in United States v. Williams2 that evidence discovered by police officers acting in the reasonable good faith that their action was authorized, should not be suppressed merely because this reliance later proved to be unjustified. In coming to this conclusion, the court looked to the purpose of the rule, its success at achieving that purpose, and its effect on the field of criminal justice. Based on these factors, and acknowledging the current contraction of the exclusionary rule, the Fifth Circuit became the first federal appellate court to recognize such an exception. THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE: HISTORICAL OVERVIEW The origin of what has become known as the "exclusionary rule" is rooted in the fourth amendment.3 However, the modern effect of the rule was first promulgated 110 years after the ratification of the amendment. Until that time, the area had been a largely "unexplored territory.' 5 Then, in 1914, the Supreme Court held that evidence 1. The case was reheard en bane on the court's own motion. The panel decision is reported as United States v. Williams, 594 F.2d 86, 98 (5th Cir. 1979). 2. 622 F.2d 830 (5th Cir. 1980). 3. U.S. CONsT. amend. IV provides: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or things to be seized. 4. Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (1886), adopted the exclusionary rule while disallowing evidence which the defendant was compelled to produce in violation of the fifth amendment. See J. LANDYNSKI, SEARCH AND SEIZURE AND THE SUPREME COURT: A STUDY IN CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION 49-61 (1966). 5. LANDYNSKI, supra note 4, at 49. 1132 wrongfully seized by federal officials was not to be admitted in criminal or civil trials.' In keeping with the view that the fourth amendment was not applicable against the states, this decision was only binding on federal officials. This concept was affirmed in 19497 subject to subsequent limitations." The exclusionary rule was enforced in state courts and against state officials in 1961 when the Court, through the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment, handed down the landmark decision of Mapp v. Ohio.9 THE PURPOSE OF THE RULE Three underlying purposes have emerged as a logical rationale for the exclusionary rule. The initial purpose was to protect the privacy of individuals against illegal searches and seizures. However: [T]he Supreme Court later downgraded the protection of privacy rationale, perhaps because of the obvious defect that the rule purports to do nothing to recompense innocent victims of Fourth Amendment violations, and the gnawing doubt as to just what right of privacy guilty individuals have in illegal firearms, contraband narcotics and policy betting slips - the frequent objects of search and seizure. 10 As this rationale fell in disfavor, proponents of the rule turned to a different analysis. In time, a second reasoning developed. It was believed that using illegally obtained evidence brought the court system into disrepute and allowed the judicial system to become tainted by working in partnership with lawbreakers (police who obtain evidence illegally)."" This thought was succinctly stated by Justice Brandeis 5:1980 Exclusionary Rule when he wrote that "government officials shall be subjected to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. . . . If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for the law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. '1 2 The modern rationale for this rule, however, is to deter the police officer from violating the fourth amendment in the first place. "The principle and almost sole theory today is that excluding the evidence will punish the police officers who made the illegal search and seizure or otherwise violated the constitutional rights of the defendant, and thus deter policemen from committing the same violation again." 13 Those advocating a contraction of the rule point out the illogic behind such a purpose.14 Thus, it is here that the battle lines are drawn. UNITED STATES v. WILLIAMS. DAWN FAITH EXCEPTION OF THE GOOD In 1976, Jo Anne Willi (...truncated)


This is a preview of a remote PDF: https://nsuworks.nova.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1736&context=nlr

Joseph R. Dawson. Ciminal Law: Exlusionary Rule United States V. Williams, Nova Law Review, 2018, Volume 5, Issue 1,