How JustAnswer Works:

  • Ask an Expert
    Experts are full of valuable knowledge and are ready to help with any question. Credentials confirmed by a Fortune 500 verification firm.
  • Get a Professional Answer
    Via email, text message, or notification as you wait on our site.
    Ask follow up questions if you need to.
  • 100% Satisfaction Guarantee
    Rate the answer you receive.

Ask Steve Herrod Your Own Question

Steve Herrod
Steve Herrod, Master's Degree
Category: Writing Homework
Satisfied Customers: 521
Experience:  Masters in Literature and a Bachelors Degree in French with Management
Type Your Writing Homework Question Here...
Steve Herrod is online now
A new question is answered every 9 seconds

The Leon Opinion The Leon case is an exception to the exclusionary

Customer Question

The Leon Opinion
The Leon case is an exception to the exclusionary rule to the Constitutional 4th Amendment on search and seizures. Do you agree with the Leon opinion? Why or why not?
I need 2 – 3 good paragraphs on the Leon case about 300 words by Wednesday February 1, 2012.
Submitted: 2 years ago.
Category: Writing Homework
Expert:  Angela--Mod replied 2 years ago.
Hi, I’m a moderator for this topic and I wonder whether you’re still waiting for an answer. If you are, please let me know and I will do my best to find an Expert to assist you right away. If not, feel free to let me know and I will cancel this question for you. Thank you!
Customer: replied 2 years ago.
Yes, I am in need of some help.

If I can have this question answer by 8 pm today I would be most grateful.
Expert:  donna-mod replied 2 years ago.

Sometimes, finding the right Expert can take a little longer than expected and we thank you greatly for your understanding. We’ll be in touch again shortly.

Customer: replied 2 years ago.
what information is needed
Customer: replied 2 years ago.

United States v. Leon - 468 U.S. 897 (1984)

Share|

 

U.S. Supreme CourtUnited States v. Leon - 468 U.S. 897 (1984)

Share|

 

U.S. Supreme Court

United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984)

United States v. Leon

No. 82-1771

Argued January 17, 1984

Decided July 5, 1984

468 U.S. 897

Syllabus

Acting on the basis of information from a confidential informant, officers of the Burbank, Cal., Police Department initiated a drug-trafficking investigation involving surveillance of respondents' activities. Based on an affidavit summarizing the police officers' observations, Officer Rombach prepared an application for a warrant to search three residences and respondents' automobiles for an extensive list of items. The application w as reviewed by several Deputy District Attorneys, and a facially valid search warrant was issued by a state court judge. Ensuing searches produced large quantities of drugs and other evidence. Respondents were indicted for federal drug offenses, and filed motions to suppress the evidence seized pursuant to the warrant. After an evidentiary hearing, the District Court granted the motions in part, concluding that the affidavit was insufficient to establish probable cause. Although recognizing that Officer Rombach had acted in good faith, the court rejected the Government's suggestion that the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule should not apply where evidence is seized in reasonable, good faith reliance on a search warrant. The Court of Appeals affirmed, also refusing the Government's invitation to recognize a good faith exception to the rule. The Government's petition for certiorari presented only the question whether a good faith exception to the exclusionary rule should be recognized.

Held:

1. The Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule should not be applied so as to bar the use in the prosecution's case in chief of evidence obtained by officers acting in reasonable reliance on a search warrant issued by a detached and neutral magistrate but ultimately found to be invalid. Pp. 468 U. S. 905-925.

(a) An examination of the Fourth Amendment's origin and purposes makes clear that the use of fruits of a past unlawful search or seizure works no new Fourth Amendment wrong. The question whether the exclusionary sanction is appropriately imposed in a particular case as a judicially created remedy to safeguard Fourth Amendment rights through its deterrent effect, must be resolved by weighing the costs and benefits of preventing the use in the prosecution's case in chief of inherently trustworthy tangible evidence. Indiscriminate application of the

Page 468 U. S. 898

exclusionary rule -- impeding the criminal justice system's truthfinding function and allowing some guilty defendants to go free -- may well generate disrespect for the law and the administration of justice. Pp. 468 U. S. 906-908.

(b) Application of the exclusionary rule should continue where a Fourth Amendment violation has been substantial and deliberate, but the balancing approach that has evolved in determining whether the rule should be applied in a variety of contexts -- including criminal trials -- suggests that the rule should be modified to permit the introduction of evidence obtained by officers reasonably relying on a warrant issued by a detached and neutral magistrate. Pp. 468 U. S. 908-913.

(c) The deference accorded to a magistrate's finding of probable cause for the issuance of a warrant does not preclude inquiry into the knowing or reckless falsity of the affidavit on which that determination was based, and the courts must also insist that the magistrate purport to perform his neutral and detached function and not serve merely as a rubber stamp for the police. Moreover, reviewing courts will not defer to a warrant based on an affidavit that does not provide the magistrate with a substantial basis for determining the existence of probable cause. However, the exclusionary rule is designed to deter police misconduct, rather than to punish the errors of judges and magistrates. Admitting evidence obtained pursuant to a warrant while at the same time declaring that the warrant was somehow defective will not reduce judicial officers' professional incentives to comply with the Fourth Amendment, encourage them to repeat their mistakes, or lead to the granting of all colorable warrant requests. Pp. 468 U. S. 913-917.

(d) Even assuming that the exclusionary rule effectively deters some police misconduct and provides incentives for the law enforcement profession as a whole to conduct itself in accord with the Fourth Amendment, it cannot be expected, and should not be applied, to deter objectively reasonable law enforcement activity. In the ordinary case, an officer cannot be expected to question the magistrate's probable cause determination or his judgment that the form of the warrant is technically sufficient . Once the warrant issues, there is literally nothing more the policeman can do in seeking to comply with the law, and penalizing the officer for the magistrate's error, rather than his own, cannot logically contribute to the deterrence of Fourth Amendment violations. Pp. 468 U. S. 918-921.

(e) A police officer's reliance on the magistrate's probable cause determination and on the technical sufficiency of the warrant he issues must be objectively reasonable. Suppression remains an appropriate remedy if the magistrate or judge in issuing a warrant was misled by information in an affidavit that the affiant knew was false or would have known was false except for his reckless disregard of the truth, or if the

Page 468 U. S. 899

issuing magistrate wholly abandoned his detached and neutral judicial role. Nor would an officer manifest objective good faith in relying on a warrant based on an affidavit so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render official belief in its existence entirely unreasonable. Finally, depending on the circumstances of the particular case, a warrant may be so facially deficient -- i.e., in failing to particularize the place to be searched or the things to be seized -- that the executing officers cannot reasonably presume it to be valid. Pp. 468 U. S. 922-925.

2. In view of the modification of the exclusionary rule, the Court of Appeals' judgment cannot stand in this case. Only respondent Leon contended that no reasonably well trained police officer could have believed that there existed probable cause to search his house. However, the record establishes that the police officers' reliance on the state court judge's determination of probable cause was objectively reasonable. Pp. 925-926.

701 F.2d 187, reversed.

WHITE, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C.J., and BLACKMUN, POWELL, REHNQUIST, and O'CONNOR, JJ., joined. BLACKMUN, J., filed a concurring opinion, post, p. 468 U. S. 927. BRENNAN, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which MARSHALL, J., joined, post, p. 468 U. S. 928. STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, post, p. 468 U. S. 960.

Page 468 U. S. 900

 

United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984)

United States v. Leon

No. 82-1771

Argued January 17, 1984

Decided July 5, 1984

468 U.S. 897

Syllabus

Acting on the basis of information from a confidential informant, officers of the Burbank, Cal., Police Department initiated a drug-trafficking investigation involving surveillance of respondents' activities. Based on an affidavit summarizing the police officers' observations, Officer Rombach prepared an application for a warrant to search three residences and respondents' automobiles for an extensive list of items. The application w as reviewed by several Deputy District Attorneys, and a facially valid search warrant was issued by a state court judge. Ensuing searches produced large quantities of drugs and other evidence. Respondents were indicted for federal drug offenses, and filed motions to suppress the evidence seized pursuant to the warrant. After an evidentiary hearing, the District Court granted the motions in part, concluding that the affidavit was insufficient to establish probable cause. Although recognizing that Officer Rombach had acted in good faith, the court rejected the Government's suggestion that the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule should not apply where evidence is seized in reasonable, good faith reliance on a search warrant. The Court of Appeals affirmed, also refusing the Government's invitation to recognize a good faith exception to the rule. The Government's petition for certiorari presented only the question whether a good faith exception to the exclusionary rule should be recognized.

Held:

1. The Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule should not be applied so as to bar the use in the prosecution's case in chief of evidence obtained by officers acting in reasonable reliance on a search warrant issued by a detached and neutral magistrate but ultimately found to be invalid. Pp. 468 U. S. 905-925.

(a) An examination of the Fourth Amendment's origin and purposes makes clear that the use of fruits of a past unlawful search or seizure works no new Fourth Amendment wrong. The question whether the exclusionary sanction is appropriately imposed in a particular case as a judicially created remedy to safeguard Fourth Amendment rights through its deterrent effect, must be resolved by weighing the costs and benefits of preventing the use in the prosecution's case in chief of inherently trustworthy tangible evidence. Indiscriminate application of the

Page 468 U. S. 898

exclusionary rule -- impeding the criminal justice system's truthfinding function and allowing some guilty defendants to go free -- may well generate disrespect for the law and the administration of justice. Pp. 468 U. S. 906-908.

(b) Application of the exclusionary rule should continue where a Fourth Amendment violation has been substantial and deliberate, but the balancing approach that has evolved in determining whether the rule should be applied in a variety of contexts -- including criminal trials -- suggests that the rule should be modified to permit the introduction of evidence obtained by officers reasonably relying on a warrant issued by a detached and neutral magistrate. Pp. 468 U. S. 908-913.

(c) The deference accorded to a magistrate's finding of probable cause for the issuance of a warrant does not preclude inquiry into the knowing or reckless falsity of the affidavit on which that determination was based, and the courts must also insist that the magistrate purport to perform his neutral and detached function and not serve merely as a rubber stamp for the police. Moreover, reviewing courts will not defer to a warrant based on an affidavit that does not provide the magistrate with a substantial basis for determining the existence of probable cause. However, the exclusionary rule is designed to deter police misconduct, rather than to punish the errors of judges and magistrates. Admitting evidence obtained pursuant to a warrant while at the same time declaring that the warrant was somehow defective will not reduce judicial officers' professional incentives to comply with the Fourth Amendment, encourage them to repeat their mistakes, or lead to the granting of all colorable warrant requests. Pp. 468 U. S. 913-917.

(d) Even assuming that the exclusionary rule effectively deters some police misconduct and provides incentives for the law enforcement profession as a whole to conduct itself in accord with the Fourth Amendment, it cannot be expected, and should not be applied, to deter objectively reasonable law enforcement activity. In the ordinary case, an officer cannot be expected to question the magistrate's probable cause determination or his judgment that the form of the warrant is technically sufficient . Once the warrant issues, there is literally nothing more the policeman can do in seeking to comply with the law, and penalizing the officer for the magistrate's error, rather than his own, cannot logically contribute to the deterrence of Fourth Amendment violations. Pp. 468 U. S. 918-921.

(e) A police officer's reliance on the magistrate's probable cause determination and on the technical sufficiency of the warrant he issues must be objectively reasonable. Suppression remains an appropriate remedy if the magistrate or judge in issuing a warrant was misled by information in an affidavit that the affiant knew was false or would have known was false except for his reckless disregard of the truth, or if the

Page 468 U. S. 899

issuing magistrate wholly abandoned his detached and neutral judicial role. Nor would an officer manifest objective good faith in relying on a warrant based on an affidavit so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render official belief in its existence entirely unreasonable. Finally, depending on the circumstances of the particular case, a warrant may be so facially deficient -- i.e., in failing to particularize the place to be searched or the things to be seized -- that the executing officers cannot reasonably presume it to be valid. Pp. 468 U. S. 922-925.

2. In view of the modification of the exclusionary rule, the Court of Appeals' judgment cannot stand in this case. Only respondent Leon contended that no reasonably well trained police officer could have believed that there existed probable cause to search his house. However, the record establishes that the police officers' reliance on the state court judge's determination of probable cause was objectively reasonable. Pp. 925-926.

701 F.2d 187, reversed.

WHITE, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C.J., and BLACKMUN, POWELL, REHNQUIST, and O'CONNOR, JJ., joined. BLACKMUN, J., filed a concurring opinion, post, p. 468 U. S. 927. BRENNAN, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which MARSHALL, J., joined, post, p. 468 U. S. 928. STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, post, p. 468 U. S. 960.

Page 468 U. S. 900

 

Expert:  Angela--Mod replied 2 years ago.

Thank you for your patience, your business is very important to us, we are waiting on the Expert with the right expertise to come online. Feel free to let us know if you would like us to continue searching for an Expert or if you would like us to close your question. Thank you for your understanding.

JustAnswer in the News:

 
 
 
Ask-a-doc Web sites: If you've got a quick question, you can try to get an answer from sites that say they have various specialists on hand to give quick answers... Justanswer.com.
JustAnswer.com...has seen a spike since October in legal questions from readers about layoffs, unemployment and severance.
Web sites like justanswer.com/legal
...leave nothing to chance.
Traffic on JustAnswer rose 14 percent...and had nearly 400,000 page views in 30 days...inquiries related to stress, high blood pressure, drinking and heart pain jumped 33 percent.
Tory Johnson, GMA Workplace Contributor, discusses work-from-home jobs, such as JustAnswer in which verified Experts answer people’s questions.
I will tell you that...the things you have to go through to be an Expert are quite rigorous.
 
 
 

What Customers are Saying:

 
 
 
  • Wonderful service, prompt, efficient, and accurate. Couldn't have asked for more. I cannot thank you enough for your help. Mary C. Freshfield, Liverpool, UK
< Last | Next >
  • Wonderful service, prompt, efficient, and accurate. Couldn't have asked for more. I cannot thank you enough for your help. Mary C. Freshfield, Liverpool, UK
  • This expert is wonderful. They truly know what they are talking about, and they actually care about you. They really helped put my nerves at ease. Thank you so much!!!! Alex Los Angeles, CA
  • Thank you for all your help. It is nice to know that this service is here for people like myself, who need answers fast and are not sure who to consult. GP Hesperia, CA
  • I couldn't be more satisfied! This is the site I will always come to when I need a second opinion. Justin Kernersville, NC
  • Just let me say that this encounter has been entirely professional and most helpful. I liked that I could ask additional questions and get answered in a very short turn around. Esther Woodstock, NY
  • Thank you so much for taking your time and knowledge to support my concerns. Not only did you answer my questions, you even took it a step further with replying with more pertinent information I needed to know. Robin Elkton, Maryland
  • He answered my question promptly and gave me accurate, detailed information. If all of your experts are half as good, you have a great thing going here. Diane Dallas, TX
 
 
 

Meet The Experts:

 
 
 
  • verbsrule

    Bachelor's Degree

    Satisfied Customers:

    435
    8 yrs teaching experience in English and history. Writing consultant.
< Last | Next >
  • http://ww2.justanswer.com/uploads/VE/verbsrule/2013-3-25_232622_MamaandEllie.64x64.jpg verbsrule's Avatar

    verbsrule

    Bachelor's Degree

    Satisfied Customers:

    435
    8 yrs teaching experience in English and history. Writing consultant.
  • http://ww2.justanswer.com/uploads/SP/spherrod/2012-6-6_174244_1000852.64x64.JPG Steve Herrod's Avatar

    Steve Herrod

    Master's Degree

    Satisfied Customers:

    419
    Masters in Literature and a Bachelors Degree in French with Management
  • http://ww2.justanswer.com/uploads/GY/gypsydust1/2012-3-31_71657_me3a.64x64.jpg DXJ Writer's Avatar

    DXJ Writer

    Master's Degree

    Satisfied Customers:

    350
    Research writer, educator, tutor with 20+ years experience.
  • http://ww2.justanswer.com/uploads/ST/stayathomemomof2/2012-3-20_152711_cameracleanup362012653.64x64.JPG stayathomemomof2's Avatar

    stayathomemomof2

    Bachelor's Degree

    Satisfied Customers:

    198
    Freelance writer.
  • http://ww2.justanswer.com/uploads/ED/educatortech/2012-6-7_1256_williams4.64x64.jpg Mr. Gregory White's Avatar

    Mr. Gregory White

    Master's Degree

    Satisfied Customers:

    173
    M.A., M.S. Education / Educational Administration
  • http://ww2.justanswer.com/uploads/JU/judybailey61/2012-6-23_23846_Resized.64x64.jpg judybailey61's Avatar

    judybailey61

    Bachelor's Degree

    Satisfied Customers:

    158
    Two years writing expert with justanswer.
  • http://ww2.justanswer.com/uploads/MB/MBJC11/2012-6-6_171228_1837551861548780869311000007725919373587357549561n.64x64.jpg Eric M.'s Avatar

    Eric M.

    Master's Degree

    Satisfied Customers:

    148
    Five years in academia, over a dozen peer-reviewed publications, multiple best paper awards, working toward PhD.