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)