855:
972:
718:
907:
1070:
920:
666:
1057:
985:
731:
614:
829:
946:
1011:
933:
458:
549:
744:
601:
796:
627:
471:
959:
842:
783:
692:
640:
588:
575:
536:
497:
445:
809:
1044:
998:
510:
484:
432:
419:
36:
1031:
868:
705:
653:
523:
881:
562:
757:
894:
770:
679:
239:. The Court reasoned that excluding evidence obtained through the police's good-faith reliance on a warrant issued by a neutral magistrate or judge that is later found to be deficient does not serve to deter any misconduct on the part of the police, and therefore such evidence is admissible. Said reasonableness of the reliance is determined under an objective standard. Furthermore, the
365:'s objectively reasonable reliance test allows for evidence obtained from all but the most grossly deficient warrants, thereby obviating the Fourth Amendment's mandate that "no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause", and that courts have commonly foregone performing an analysis as to the validity of a warrant in favor of simply applying the exception.
286:(1995), the Court held that evidence gathered because of a clerical error (here, a search warrant that was not properly removed from the police database) was admissible under the good-faith exception. The majority explained that the purpose of the exclusionary rule is to deter police misconduct, not punish mistakes made by court employees.
344:
and expanded the good-faith exception to warrantless searches. Under the Act, evidence would be admissible as long as the officer had an objectively reasonable belief that their actions were constitutional at the time of the search. Opponents of the bill argued that this new test excessively
163:, such as one executed under an invalid search warrant. However, the good-faith exemption allows evidence collected by law enforcement officers pursuant to a defective search warrant if the officers reasonably relied on the validity of the warrant in
312:(2011), the Court ruled that evidence gathered from a search performed in reasonable reliance on binding appellate precedent that was later overruled as being unconstitutional (here, a vehicle search that was rendered unconstitutional in view of
383:, negligent vs. intentional) has not previously been within the calculus of deterring police misconduct, and that a constitutional violation does not merit less scrutiny because it was the result of merely negligent behavior.
208:, the majority gave three rationales for enforcing the exclusionary rule under the Constitution: protecting a defendant's Fourth Amendment rights, promoting judicial integrity, and deterring improper searches and seizures.
273:(1987), the Court extended the good-faith exception where an officer reasonably relied on a statute authorizing warrantless searches that was later found to be unconstitutional, citing the same lack of deterrent effect as
189:
prohibited the admissibility of evidence obtained through unreasonable searches or seizures in federal criminal prosecutions, thereby establishing the exclusionary rule. In 1961, the Court, then led by
1472:
Thomas Y. Davies, The
Supreme Court Giveth and the Supreme Court Taketh Away: The Century of Fourth Amendment Search and Seizure Doctrine, 100 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 933 at 1011-12 (2010).
361:
has claimed that the exception enables dubious searches and limits the ability of defendants to contest the legality of a search. University of
Tennessee Professor Thomas Y. Davies argues that
295:(2009), the Court considered whether the exception applied to evidence obtained because of a warrant that was not removed from a database because of a mistake by the police (unlike in
371:, which held that negligent actions by the police in some circumstances may still fall under the good-faith exception, has also invited scrutiny. Prominent Fourth Amendment scholar
2065:
1481:
Wayne R. LaFave, The Smell of
Herring: A Critique of the Supreme Court's Latest Assault on the Exclusionary Rule, 99 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 757 at 787 (2008-2009).
345:
broadened the scope of the good-faith exception by removing the requirement that the officer base their good-faith belief of constitutionality on an external authority (
235:
277:. The dissent argued that the majority improperly conflated searches which are authorized by judicial action and those which are authorized through legislation.
392:
269:
153:
349:
a neutral judge or magistrate, or a statute). Upon passing the House with a 289 - 142 vote, it ultimately did not progress through the Senate.
1586:
299:, where a court clerk made the error). The majority held that it did when the police mistake was due to a simple, isolated incident of
2333:
100:
2384:
72:
53:
79:
17:
201:
263:
Where the warrant was so clearly deficient, such as with respect to the location to be searched or objects to be seized
186:
86:
119:
357:
The good-faith exception has been subject to significant criticism from civil rights groups and legal scholars. The
133:
68:
2389:
358:
57:
1448:
308:
159:
For criminal proceedings, the exclusionary rule prohibits entry of evidence obtained through an unreasonable
1142:
1873:
337:
251:
Where the warrant was issued based on an affidavit containing intentionally or recklessly false information
1511:
1112:
1097:
1192:
Hauhart, Robert C.; Choi, Courtney Carter (2012). "The Good Faith
Exception to the Exclusionary Rule".
219:(1969-1986) effectively limited the applicability of the exclusionary rule to criminal trial processes
1641:
1092:
333:
291:
93:
1757:
303:
rather than systemic error or a deliberate or reckless disregard of constitutional requirements.
46:
1629:
1554:
1841:
254:
Where the magistrate or judge who issued the warrant was not neutral and detached from the case
181:
2394:
1102:
403:
229:
200:
that the exclusionary rule also applies to state criminal prosecutions under the doctrine of
227:
In 1984, the
Supreme Court established the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule in
1989:
1117:
860:
8:
1022:
2173:
1408:
1392:
1376:
1360:
1288:
1272:
1256:
1240:
1122:
1016:
160:
137:
1211:
391:
The exclusionary rule was held enforceable against state governments by virtue of the
1344:
1328:
149:
2269:
1741:
1598:
1168:
401:. Not all states, however, have adopted the federal good-faith exception as held in
1689:
1087:
964:
282:
212:
2221:
1961:
257:
Where the warrant was issued based on an affidavit so clearly lacking support for
1889:
1773:
1613:
313:
2349:
2301:
2253:
2105:
2081:
1821:
1789:
2365:
2237:
1945:
1709:
1673:
1657:
1527:
977:
723:
258:
2205:
2189:
2121:
2049:
2005:
1905:
1570:
2378:
2317:
2153:
2033:
1857:
1805:
1107:
1075:
925:
912:
329:
2285:
2137:
2097:
1977:
1725:
1062:
990:
736:
671:
397:
372:
216:
215:, was a vocal opponent of the exclusionary rule. In a series of cases, the
196:
1490:
Holley, Dannye R. (2021). "Leon and the State
Supreme Courts, 1984–2019".
1539:
834:
619:
376:
191:
820:
951:
938:
463:
300:
164:
1023:
States that have not decided whether to adopt the good-faith exception
801:
749:
606:
554:
35:
847:
788:
697:
645:
632:
593:
580:
541:
502:
476:
450:
1212:
Exclusionary rule and good-faith exception: is it time for change.
1049:
1003:
814:
515:
489:
437:
424:
410:
1036:
873:
710:
658:
528:
319:
886:
762:
567:
1210:
Lee, Donald
Winfred, & Manning, Johann Ray Jr. (1984).
899:
775:
684:
243:
majority enumerated specific instances where the exception
1696:, 563 U.S. 452, 131 S. Ct. 1849, 179 L. Ed. 2d 865 (2011).
1315:, 480 U.S. 340, 364 (1987) (O'Connor, J., dissenting).
1694:
rev'd and remanded on other grounds, Kentucky v. King
821:
States that do not recognize the good-faith exception
332:
1932:, No. 23-5826, 2024 WL 759834 (U.S. Feb. 26, 2024).
1874:
2021-Ohio-4465, 166 Ohio St. 3d 479, 187 N.E.3d 510
60:. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
316:) was admissible under the good-faith exception.
222:
2376:
211:However, the successor to Chief Justice Warren,
1449:"The Police's Get-Out-of-Jail-Free Card | ACLU"
411:States that recognize the good-faith exception
2158:abrogated on other grounds by State v. Turner
340:. The Act would have codified the ruling in
2034:2021 WI 64, 397 Wis. 2d 719, 960 N.W.2d 869
1828:, 143 S. Ct. 404, 214 L. Ed. 2d 201 (2022).
1191:
1143:"good faith exception to exclusionary rule"
320:Attempt at federal legislative codification
2222:1993-NMSC-062, 116 N.M. 431, 863 P.2d 1052
120:Learn how and when to remove this message
1924:, 439 S.C. 449, 887 S.E.2d 912 (2023),
14:
2377:
2020:, 297 Va. 207, 824 S.E.2d 485 (2019).
1990:Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 38.23
1147:Wex Legal Dictionary and Encyclopedia
58:adding citations to reliable sources
29:
2286:2010 VT 63, 188 Vt. 187, 5 A.3d 890
148:) is one of the limitations on the
24:
1912:, 371 Or. 106, 530 P.3d 487 (2023)
1642:725 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/114-12
1438:H.R. Rep. No. 104-17 at 17 (1995).
1214:Mercer Law Review, 35(2), 699-724.
25:
2406:
1429:H.R. Rep. No. 104-17 at 6 (1995).
1420:H.R. Rep. No. 104-17 at 2 (1995).
1173:LII / Legal Information Institute
1068:
1055:
1042:
1029:
1009:
996:
983:
970:
957:
944:
931:
918:
905:
892:
879:
866:
853:
840:
827:
807:
794:
781:
768:
755:
742:
729:
716:
703:
690:
677:
664:
651:
638:
625:
612:
599:
586:
573:
560:
547:
534:
521:
508:
495:
482:
469:
456:
443:
430:
417:
134:United States constitutional law
34:
2355:
2339:
2323:
2307:
2291:
2275:
2259:
2243:
2227:
2211:
2195:
2179:
2163:
2143:
2127:
2111:
2087:
2071:
2055:
2039:
2023:
2011:
1995:
1983:
1967:
1951:
1935:
1915:
1895:
1879:
1863:
1847:
1831:
1811:
1795:
1779:
1763:
1747:
1731:
1715:
1699:
1679:
1663:
1647:
1635:
1630:2018 IL 122761, 129 N.E.3d 1141
1619:
1603:
1592:
1576:
1560:
1544:
1540:Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-3925
1533:
1517:
1501:
1484:
1475:
1466:
1441:
1432:
1423:
1414:
1398:
1382:
1366:
1350:
1334:
1318:
1306:
1294:
45:needs additional citations for
2385:Legal doctrines and principles
2366:176 W. Va. 613, 346 S.E.2d 762
1906:323 Or. App. 172, 522 P.3d 876
1453:American Civil Liberties Union
1278:
1262:
1246:
1230:
1217:
1204:
1185:
1161:
1135:
359:American Civil Liberties Union
223:Jurisprudence of the Exception
13:
1:
2302:192 Wash. 2d 871, 434 P.3d 58
2238:66 N.Y.2d 417, 488 N.E.2d 451
2160:, 630 N.W.2d 601 (Iowa 2001).
1946:2004 S.D. 108, 688 N.W.2d 193
1758:468 Mich. 488, 668 N.W.2d 602
1555:2016 Ark. 225, 492 S.W.3d 846
1227:, 14 AM. U. L. REV. 1 (1964).
1149:. Legal Information Institute
1128:
352:
174:
2174:482 Mass. 70, 121 N.E.3d 166
2102:abrogated by Mobley v. State
2066:331 Conn. 258, 202 A.3d 1003
1822:311 Neb. 705, 974 N.W.2d 595
1599:Colo. Rev. Stat. § 16-3-308.
386:
27:United States legal doctrine
7:
2334:2000 MT 107N, 300 Mont. 544
2254:322 N.C. 709, 370 S.E.2d 55
2206:232 N.J. 417, 180 A.3d 1110
2138:152 Idaho 511, 272 P.3d 483
2098:262 Ga. 573, 422 S.E.2d 426
1890:2018 OK CR 28, 429 P.3d 997
1858:2015 ND 211, 868 N.W.2d 522
1571:28 Cal. 4th 22, 46 P.3d 898
1225:Who Will Watch the Watchman
1113:Independent source doctrine
1098:Fruit of the poisonous tree
1081:
10:
2411:
2270:640 Pa. 653, 164 A.3d 1162
2106:307 Ga. 59, 834 S.E.2d 785
1674:315 Kan. 732, 511 P.3d 883
1528:246 Ariz. 67, 434 P.3d 578
375:argues that the degree of
2190:164 N.H. 217, 55 A.3d 933
2170:Commonwealth v. Fredericq
1842:119 Nev. 166, 69 P.3d 232
1587:2023 CO 53, 536 P.3d 1260
1253:Massachusetts v. Sheppard
324:Prior to the decision of
236:Massachusetts v. Sheppard
192:Chief Justice Earl Warren
2006:2010 UT 18, 229 P.3d 650
1742:481 Md. 423, 282 A.3d 98
1726:2013 ME 106, 82 A.3d 820
1373:Herring v. United States
1357:Herring v. United States
1093:Sugar bowl (legal maxim)
369:Herring v. United States
292:Herring v. United States
2320:(Alaska Ct. App. 2010).
2122:70 Haw. 546, 779 P.2d 1
2018:Collins v. Commonwealth
1980:(Tex. Crim. App. 1997).
233:and its companion case
1405:Davis v. United States
1389:Davis v. United States
1303:, 480 U.S. 340 (1987).
336:) to the House of the
309:Davis v. United States
182:Weeks v. United States
69:"Good-faith exception"
2390:Searches and seizures
2266:Commonwealth v. Myers
1492:Criminal Law Bulletin
1285:United States v. Leon
1269:United States v. Leon
1237:United States v. Leon
1194:Criminal Law Bulletin
1103:Parallel construction
404:United States v. Leon
342:United States v. Leon
230:United States v. Leon
2336:, 8 P.3d 123 (2000).
1118:Inevitable discovery
393:Fourteenth Amendment
213:Chief Justice Burger
142:good-faith exception
54:improve this article
18:Good faith exception
1886:State v. Haliburton
1738:Richardson v. State
1169:"exclusionary rule"
146:good-faith doctrine
2218:State v. Gutierrez
1902:State v. Breedwell
1770:State v. Lindquist
1223:Warren E. Burger,
1123:Knock-and-announce
187:U.S. Supreme Court
161:search and seizure
138:criminal procedure
2298:State v. Mayfield
2234:People v. Bigelow
1958:State v. McElrath
1942:State v. Sorensen
1928:(June 28, 2023),
1870:State v. Harrison
1818:State v. McGovern
1754:People v. Hawkins
1610:State v. Peterson
1583:People v. Seymour
1524:State v. Weakland
1313:Illinois v. Krull
1301:Illinois v. Krull
328:, Representative
270:Illinois v. Krull
179:In the 1914 case
150:exclusionary rule
130:
129:
122:
104:
16:(Redirected from
2402:
2369:
2359:
2353:
2346:State v. McGuire
2343:
2337:
2327:
2321:
2311:
2305:
2295:
2289:
2282:State v. McManis
2279:
2273:
2263:
2257:
2247:
2241:
2231:
2225:
2215:
2209:
2199:
2193:
2183:
2177:
2167:
2161:
2147:
2141:
2131:
2125:
2118:State v. Rothman
2115:
2109:
2091:
2085:
2078:Wheeler v. State
2075:
2069:
2059:
2053:
2043:
2037:
2027:
2021:
2015:
2009:
1999:
1993:
1987:
1981:
1971:
1965:
1955:
1949:
1939:
1933:
1919:
1913:
1899:
1893:
1883:
1877:
1867:
1861:
1851:
1845:
1835:
1829:
1815:
1809:
1799:
1793:
1783:
1777:
1767:
1761:
1751:
1745:
1735:
1729:
1722:State v. Johndro
1719:
1713:
1706:State v. Varnado
1703:
1697:
1683:
1677:
1670:State v. Hillard
1667:
1661:
1654:Heuring v. State
1651:
1645:
1639:
1633:
1623:
1617:
1607:
1601:
1596:
1590:
1580:
1574:
1567:People v. Willis
1564:
1558:
1548:
1542:
1537:
1531:
1521:
1515:
1505:
1499:
1488:
1482:
1479:
1473:
1470:
1464:
1463:
1461:
1460:
1445:
1439:
1436:
1430:
1427:
1421:
1418:
1412:
1402:
1396:
1386:
1380:
1370:
1364:
1354:
1348:
1341:Arizona v. Evans
1338:
1332:
1325:Arizona v. Evans
1322:
1316:
1310:
1304:
1298:
1292:
1282:
1276:
1275:, 898-99 (1984).
1266:
1260:
1250:
1244:
1234:
1228:
1221:
1215:
1208:
1202:
1201:
1189:
1183:
1182:
1180:
1179:
1165:
1159:
1158:
1156:
1154:
1139:
1088:Good faith (law)
1073:
1072:
1071:
1060:
1059:
1058:
1047:
1046:
1045:
1034:
1033:
1032:
1014:
1013:
1012:
1001:
1000:
999:
988:
987:
986:
975:
974:
973:
962:
961:
960:
949:
948:
947:
936:
935:
934:
923:
922:
921:
910:
909:
908:
897:
896:
895:
884:
883:
882:
871:
870:
869:
858:
857:
856:
845:
844:
843:
832:
831:
830:
812:
811:
810:
799:
798:
797:
786:
785:
784:
773:
772:
771:
760:
759:
758:
747:
746:
745:
734:
733:
732:
721:
720:
719:
708:
707:
706:
695:
694:
693:
682:
681:
680:
669:
668:
667:
656:
655:
654:
643:
642:
641:
630:
629:
628:
617:
616:
615:
604:
603:
602:
591:
590:
589:
578:
577:
576:
565:
564:
563:
552:
551:
550:
539:
538:
537:
526:
525:
524:
513:
512:
511:
500:
499:
498:
487:
486:
485:
474:
473:
472:
461:
460:
459:
448:
447:
446:
435:
434:
433:
422:
421:
420:
326:Arizona v. Evans
283:Arizona v. Evans
154:Fourth Amendment
125:
118:
114:
111:
105:
103:
62:
38:
30:
21:
2410:
2409:
2405:
2404:
2403:
2401:
2400:
2399:
2375:
2374:
2373:
2372:
2362:State v. Adkins
2360:
2356:
2344:
2340:
2328:
2324:
2314:Deemer v. State
2312:
2308:
2296:
2292:
2280:
2276:
2264:
2260:
2250:State v. Carter
2248:
2244:
2232:
2228:
2216:
2212:
2200:
2196:
2186:State v. Schulz
2184:
2180:
2168:
2164:
2148:
2144:
2132:
2128:
2116:
2112:
2092:
2088:
2076:
2072:
2060:
2056:
2046:Guerra v. State
2044:
2040:
2028:
2024:
2016:
2012:
2000:
1996:
1988:
1984:
1972:
1968:
1956:
1952:
1940:
1936:
1922:State v. German
1920:
1916:
1900:
1896:
1884:
1880:
1868:
1864:
1852:
1848:
1836:
1832:
1816:
1812:
1800:
1796:
1790:238 So. 3d 1150
1786:Sutton v. State
1784:
1780:
1768:
1764:
1752:
1748:
1736:
1732:
1720:
1716:
1704:
1700:
1684:
1680:
1668:
1664:
1652:
1648:
1640:
1636:
1626:People v. Manzo
1624:
1620:
1608:
1604:
1597:
1593:
1581:
1577:
1565:
1561:
1551:Echols v. State
1549:
1545:
1538:
1534:
1522:
1518:
1508:Ex Parte Morgan
1506:
1502:
1489:
1485:
1480:
1476:
1471:
1467:
1458:
1456:
1447:
1446:
1442:
1437:
1433:
1428:
1424:
1419:
1415:
1403:
1399:
1387:
1383:
1371:
1367:
1355:
1351:
1339:
1335:
1323:
1319:
1311:
1307:
1299:
1295:
1283:
1279:
1267:
1263:
1251:
1247:
1235:
1231:
1222:
1218:
1209:
1205:
1190:
1186:
1177:
1175:
1167:
1166:
1162:
1152:
1150:
1141:
1140:
1136:
1131:
1084:
1069:
1067:
1056:
1054:
1043:
1041:
1030:
1028:
1025:
1010:
1008:
997:
995:
984:
982:
971:
969:
958:
956:
945:
943:
932:
930:
919:
917:
906:
904:
893:
891:
880:
878:
867:
865:
854:
852:
841:
839:
828:
826:
823:
808:
806:
795:
793:
782:
780:
769:
767:
756:
754:
743:
741:
730:
728:
717:
715:
704:
702:
691:
689:
678:
676:
665:
663:
652:
650:
639:
637:
626:
624:
613:
611:
600:
598:
587:
585:
574:
572:
561:
559:
548:
546:
535:
533:
522:
520:
509:
507:
496:
494:
483:
481:
470:
468:
457:
455:
444:
442:
431:
429:
418:
416:
413:
389:
355:
322:
314:Arizona v. Gant
225:
177:
126:
115:
109:
106:
63:
61:
51:
39:
28:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
2408:
2398:
2397:
2392:
2387:
2371:
2370:
2354:
2338:
2322:
2306:
2290:
2274:
2258:
2242:
2226:
2210:
2202:State v. Boone
2194:
2178:
2162:
2154:617 N.W.2d 277
2150:State v. Cline
2142:
2134:State v. Koivu
2126:
2110:
2086:
2070:
2062:State v. Brown
2054:
2038:
2030:State v. Prado
2022:
2010:
2002:State v. Baker
1994:
1982:
1978:951 S.W.2d 478
1966:
1962:569 S.W.3d 565
1950:
1934:
1914:
1894:
1878:
1862:
1854:State v. Pogue
1846:
1838:State v. Allen
1830:
1810:
1806:630 S.W.3d 754
1802:State v. Bales
1794:
1778:
1774:869 N.W.2d 863
1762:
1746:
1730:
1714:
1710:675 So. 2d 268
1698:
1690:302 S.W.3d 649
1678:
1662:
1658:140 N.E.3d 270
1646:
1634:
1618:
1614:739 So. 2d 561
1602:
1591:
1575:
1559:
1543:
1532:
1516:
1512:641 So. 2d 840
1500:
1483:
1474:
1465:
1440:
1431:
1422:
1413:
1397:
1381:
1365:
1349:
1333:
1317:
1305:
1293:
1277:
1261:
1245:
1229:
1216:
1203:
1184:
1160:
1133:
1132:
1130:
1127:
1126:
1125:
1120:
1115:
1110:
1105:
1100:
1095:
1090:
1083:
1080:
1079:
1078:
1065:
1052:
1039:
1024:
1021:
1020:
1019:
1006:
993:
980:
978:North Carolina
967:
954:
941:
928:
915:
902:
889:
876:
863:
850:
837:
822:
819:
818:
817:
804:
791:
778:
765:
752:
739:
726:
724:South Carolina
713:
700:
687:
674:
661:
648:
635:
622:
609:
596:
583:
570:
557:
544:
531:
518:
505:
492:
479:
466:
453:
440:
427:
412:
409:
388:
385:
354:
351:
338:104th Congress
321:
318:
265:
264:
261:
259:probable cause
255:
252:
224:
221:
176:
173:
128:
127:
42:
40:
33:
26:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2407:
2396:
2393:
2391:
2388:
2386:
2383:
2382:
2380:
2367:
2363:
2358:
2351:
2347:
2342:
2335:
2331:
2330:State v. Deeg
2326:
2319:
2315:
2310:
2303:
2299:
2294:
2287:
2283:
2278:
2271:
2267:
2262:
2255:
2251:
2246:
2239:
2235:
2230:
2223:
2219:
2214:
2207:
2203:
2198:
2191:
2187:
2182:
2175:
2171:
2166:
2159:
2156:(Iowa 2000),
2155:
2151:
2146:
2139:
2135:
2130:
2123:
2119:
2114:
2107:
2103:
2099:
2095:
2094:Gary v. State
2090:
2083:
2079:
2074:
2067:
2063:
2058:
2051:
2047:
2042:
2035:
2031:
2026:
2019:
2014:
2007:
2003:
1998:
1991:
1986:
1979:
1975:
1974:Dunn v. State
1970:
1964:(Tenn. 2019).
1963:
1959:
1954:
1947:
1943:
1938:
1931:
1927:
1923:
1918:
1911:
1910:review denied
1907:
1903:
1898:
1891:
1887:
1882:
1875:
1871:
1866:
1859:
1855:
1850:
1843:
1839:
1834:
1827:
1823:
1819:
1814:
1807:
1803:
1798:
1792:(Miss. 2018).
1791:
1787:
1782:
1776:(Minn. 2015).
1775:
1771:
1766:
1759:
1755:
1750:
1743:
1739:
1734:
1727:
1723:
1718:
1711:
1707:
1702:
1695:
1691:
1687:
1682:
1675:
1671:
1666:
1659:
1655:
1650:
1643:
1638:
1631:
1627:
1622:
1615:
1611:
1606:
1600:
1595:
1589:(Colo. 2023).
1588:
1584:
1579:
1572:
1568:
1563:
1556:
1552:
1547:
1541:
1536:
1529:
1525:
1520:
1513:
1509:
1504:
1498:(4): 453–483.
1497:
1493:
1487:
1478:
1469:
1454:
1450:
1444:
1435:
1426:
1417:
1411:, 231 (2011).
1410:
1406:
1401:
1394:
1390:
1385:
1379:, 147 (2009).
1378:
1374:
1369:
1362:
1358:
1353:
1346:
1342:
1337:
1330:
1326:
1321:
1314:
1309:
1302:
1297:
1291:, 923 (1984).
1290:
1286:
1281:
1274:
1270:
1265:
1258:
1254:
1249:
1242:
1238:
1233:
1226:
1220:
1213:
1207:
1199:
1195:
1188:
1174:
1170:
1164:
1148:
1144:
1138:
1134:
1124:
1121:
1119:
1116:
1114:
1111:
1109:
1108:Taint (legal)
1106:
1104:
1101:
1099:
1096:
1094:
1091:
1089:
1086:
1085:
1077:
1076:West Virginia
1066:
1064:
1053:
1051:
1040:
1038:
1027:
1026:
1018:
1007:
1005:
994:
992:
981:
979:
968:
966:
955:
953:
942:
940:
929:
927:
926:New Hampshire
916:
914:
913:Massachusetts
903:
901:
890:
888:
877:
875:
864:
862:
851:
849:
838:
836:
825:
824:
816:
805:
803:
792:
790:
779:
777:
766:
764:
753:
751:
740:
738:
727:
725:
714:
712:
701:
699:
688:
686:
675:
673:
662:
660:
649:
647:
636:
634:
623:
621:
610:
608:
597:
595:
584:
582:
571:
569:
558:
556:
545:
543:
532:
530:
519:
517:
506:
504:
493:
491:
480:
478:
467:
465:
454:
452:
441:
439:
428:
426:
415:
414:
408:
407:
405:
400:
399:
394:
384:
382:
378:
374:
370:
366:
364:
360:
350:
348:
343:
339:
335:
331:
330:Bill McCollum
327:
317:
315:
311:
310:
304:
302:
298:
294:
293:
287:
285:
284:
278:
276:
272:
271:
262:
260:
256:
253:
250:
249:
248:
246:
242:
238:
237:
232:
231:
220:
218:
214:
209:
207:
203:
202:incorporation
199:
198:
193:
188:
184:
183:
172:
170:
166:
162:
157:
155:
151:
147:
143:
139:
135:
124:
121:
113:
110:December 2023
102:
99:
95:
92:
88:
85:
81:
78:
74:
71: –
70:
66:
65:Find sources:
59:
55:
49:
48:
43:This article
41:
37:
32:
31:
19:
2395:Evidence law
2361:
2357:
2352:(R.I. 2022).
2350:273 A.3d 146
2345:
2341:
2329:
2325:
2313:
2309:
2297:
2293:
2281:
2277:
2265:
2261:
2249:
2245:
2233:
2229:
2217:
2213:
2201:
2197:
2185:
2181:
2169:
2165:
2157:
2149:
2145:
2133:
2129:
2117:
2113:
2101:
2093:
2089:
2084:(Del. 2016).
2082:135 A.3d 282
2077:
2073:
2061:
2057:
2052:(Wyo. 1995).
2050:897 P.2d 447
2045:
2041:
2029:
2025:
2017:
2013:
2001:
1997:
1985:
1973:
1969:
1957:
1953:
1941:
1937:
1930:cert. denied
1929:
1926:reh'g denied
1925:
1921:
1917:
1909:
1901:
1897:
1885:
1881:
1869:
1865:
1853:
1849:
1837:
1833:
1826:cert. denied
1825:
1817:
1813:
1801:
1797:
1785:
1781:
1769:
1765:
1753:
1749:
1737:
1733:
1721:
1717:
1705:
1701:
1693:
1692:(Ky. 2010),
1686:King v. Com.
1685:
1681:
1669:
1665:
1660:(Ind. 2020).
1653:
1649:
1637:
1632:(Ill. 2018).
1625:
1621:
1616:(Fla. 1999).
1609:
1605:
1594:
1582:
1578:
1566:
1562:
1550:
1546:
1535:
1523:
1519:
1514:(Ala. 1994).
1507:
1503:
1495:
1491:
1486:
1477:
1468:
1457:. Retrieved
1455:. 2014-10-29
1452:
1443:
1434:
1425:
1416:
1409:564 U.S. 229
1404:
1400:
1393:564 U.S. 229
1388:
1384:
1377:555 U.S. 135
1372:
1368:
1361:555 U.S. 135
1356:
1352:
1347:, 14 (1995).
1340:
1336:
1324:
1320:
1312:
1308:
1300:
1296:
1289:468 U.S. 897
1284:
1280:
1273:468 U.S. 897
1268:
1264:
1257:468 U.S. 981
1252:
1248:
1241:468 U.S. 897
1236:
1232:
1224:
1219:
1206:
1197:
1193:
1187:
1176:. Retrieved
1172:
1163:
1151:. Retrieved
1146:
1137:
1063:Rhode Island
991:Pennsylvania
737:South Dakota
672:North Dakota
402:
398:Mapp v. Ohio
396:
390:
380:
373:Wayne LaFave
368:
367:
362:
356:
346:
341:
325:
323:
307:
305:
296:
290:
288:
281:
279:
274:
268:
266:
244:
240:
234:
228:
226:
217:Burger Court
210:
205:
197:Mapp v. Ohio
195:
180:
178:
168:
158:
145:
141:
131:
116:
107:
97:
90:
83:
76:
64:
52:Please help
47:verification
44:
2318:244 P.3d 69
1808:(Mo. 2021).
1712:(La. 1996).
1153:30 November
835:Connecticut
620:Mississippi
377:culpability
194:, ruled in
2379:Categories
1459:2024-04-19
1345:514 U.S. 1
1329:514 U.S. 1
1178:2024-03-11
1129:References
1017:Washington
952:New Mexico
939:New Jersey
464:California
353:Criticisms
301:negligence
175:Background
169:bona fides
165:good faith
80:newspapers
2256:3 (1988).
802:Wisconsin
750:Tennessee
607:Minnesota
555:Louisiana
387:State law
245:would not
2100:(1992),
1908:(2022),
1082:See also
965:New York
848:Delaware
789:Virginia
698:Oklahoma
646:Nebraska
633:Missouri
594:Michigan
581:Maryland
542:Kentucky
503:Illinois
477:Colorado
451:Arkansas
334:H.R. 666
2368:(1986).
2304:(2019).
2288:(2010).
2272:(2017).
2240:(1985).
2224:(1993).
2208:(2017).
2192:(2012).
2176:(2019).
2140:(2012).
2124:(1989).
2108:(2019).
2068:(2019).
2036:(2021).
2008:(2010).
1948:(2004).
1892:(2018).
1876:(2021).
1860:(2015).
1844:(2003).
1760:(2003).
1744:(2022).
1728:(2013).
1676:(2022).
1573:(2002).
1557:(2016).
1530:(2019).
1395:(2011).
1363:(2009).
1331:(1995).
1259:(1984).
1243:(1984).
1050:Montana
1004:Vermont
861:Georgia
815:Wyoming
516:Indiana
490:Florida
438:Arizona
425:Alabama
247:apply:
152:of the
94:scholar
1074:
1061:
1048:
1037:Alaska
1035:
1015:
1002:
989:
976:
963:
950:
937:
924:
911:
898:
885:
874:Hawaii
872:
859:
846:
833:
813:
800:
787:
774:
761:
748:
735:
722:
711:Oregon
709:
696:
683:
670:
659:Nevada
657:
644:
631:
618:
605:
592:
579:
566:
553:
540:
529:Kansas
527:
514:
501:
488:
475:
462:
449:
436:
423:
185:, the
144:(also
140:, the
96:
89:
82:
75:
67:
887:Idaho
763:Texas
568:Maine
347:e.g.,
297:Evans
204:. In
101:JSTOR
87:books
1200:(2).
1155:2023
900:Iowa
776:Utah
685:Ohio
381:e.g.
363:Leon
275:Leon
241:Leon
206:Mapp
136:and
73:news
395:in
306:In
289:In
280:In
267:In
171:).
132:In
56:by
2381::
2364:,
2348:,
2332:,
2316:,
2300:,
2284:,
2268:,
2252:,
2236:,
2220:,
2204:,
2188:,
2172:,
2152:,
2136:,
2120:,
2104:,
2096:,
2080:,
2064:,
2048:,
2032:,
2004:,
1976:,
1960:,
1944:,
1904:,
1888:,
1872:,
1856:,
1840:,
1824:,
1820:,
1804:,
1788:,
1772:,
1756:,
1740:,
1724:,
1708:,
1688:,
1672:,
1656:,
1628:,
1612:,
1585:,
1569:,
1553:,
1526:,
1510:,
1496:57
1494:.
1451:.
1407:,
1391:,
1375:,
1359:,
1343:,
1327:,
1287:,
1271:,
1255:,
1239:,
1198:48
1196:.
1171:.
1145:.
156:.
1992:.
1644:.
1462:.
1181:.
1157:.
406:.
379:(
167:(
123:)
117:(
112:)
108:(
98:·
91:·
84:·
77:·
50:.
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
