POLS 4720 Lecture Notes - Lecture 9: Samuel Alito, Exclusionary Rule, Methamphetamine
5 May 2018
School
Department
Course
Professor
1.
-Explain the legal rules created in Chief Justice John Robert’s opinion in Herring v. United
States and Justice Samuel Alito’s opinion in Davis v. United States
-In the case of Herring v. United States, Herring was arrested for an outstanding warrant,
and his arrest revealed a gun and methamphetamine (Oyez, 2009). After his arrest, it was
discovered that his warrant was recalled and no longer valid. The warrant was not
updated in the computer system by another law enforcement officer. Chief Justice John
Roberts held that the exclusionary rule should only apply where it has a deterrent effect
and that the benefits of the deterrence must outweigh the costs. Therefore, penalizing the
officers for following the law that was applied at the time of the conduct would not deter
Fourth amendment violations.
-In the case of Davis v. United States, when Davis’ appeal was pending, the Supreme
Court decided Arizona v Gant, which changed the rule relating to searches of vehicles
incident to lawful arrests (Oyez, 2011). Justice Samuel Alito stated that the purpose of the
exclusionary rule is to deter future Fourth Amendment violations. “Real deterrent value is
a necessary condition for exclusion, but it is not a sufficient one”. He stated that for
exclusion to be appropriate, the deterrence benefits of suppression must outweigh its
heavy costs. If officers act with an objectively “reasonable good-faith belief” that their
conduct is lawful, the deterrence rationale loses much of its force and exclusion cannot
pay its way. Therefore, “searches conducted in objectively reasonable reliance on binding
appellate precedent are not subject to the exclusionary rule”.
-Apply Herring and Davis to the following:
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Document Summary
Explain the legal rules created in chief justice john robert"s opinion in herring v. united. States and justice samuel alito"s opinion in davis v. united states. In the case of herring v. united states, herring was arrested for an outstanding warrant, and his arrest revealed a gun and methamphetamine (oyez, 2009). After his arrest, it was discovered that his warrant was recalled and no longer valid. The warrant was not updated in the computer system by another law enforcement officer. Roberts held that the exclusionary rule should only apply where it has a deterrent effect and that the benefits of the deterrence must outweigh the costs. Therefore, penalizing the officers for following the law that was applied at the time of the conduct would not deter. In the case of davis v. united states, when davis" appeal was pending, the supreme.
