How have courts interpreted the exclusionary rule in the context of search and seizure cases?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Reese, C065511, Super. Ct. No. 085168 (Cal. App. 2011):
1. See Griffith v. Kentucky (1987) 479 U.S. 314, 328 [93 L.Ed.2d 649, 661], holding that "a new rule for the conduct of criminal prosecutions is to be applied retroactively to all cases, state or federal, pending on direct review or not yet final, with no exception for cases in which the new rule constitutes a 'clear break' with the past."
2. "When evidence is obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment, the judicially developed exclusionary rule usually precludes its use in a criminal proceeding against the victim of the illegal search and seizure." (Illinois v. Krull (1987) 480
U.S. 340, 347 [94 L.Ed.2d 364, 373].)
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
