Traffic Stops and the New Exclusionary Rule Regime: Why Harris, Hudson, and Herring Mandate That the Discovery of an Outstanding Arrest Warrant Attenuate the Taint of an Illegal Traffic Stop Except in the Case of A Flagrant Fourth Amendment ViolationExpressO (2013)
AbstractSuppose that during the course of an illegal traffic stop officers discover an outstanding arrest warrant for the driver, make the arrest, and then discover evidence such as narcotics in the driver’s pocket. Under the exclusionary rule, should the narcotics be considered the “fruit” of the illegal stop or does the discovery of the arrest warrant attenuate the taint? This article explores the longstanding circuit split on this question and contends that the discovery of an outstanding arrest warrant should attenuate the taint unless the initial illegal traffic stop was a flagrant violation of the Fourth Amendment. Almost all courts analyze this question under the traditional multi-factor attenuation standard found in Brown v. Illinois. This article advances a new argument based on a trio of much more recent exclusionary rule cases—New York v. Harris, Hudson v. Michigan, and Herring v. United States. This article explains why these precedents provide a sounder basis on which to resolve the issue. Finally, the article addresses these precedents in light of the causation and culpability foundations of the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule.
- Fourth Amendment,
- exclusionary rule,
- Hudson v. Michigan,
Publication DateMarch 5, 2013
Citation InformationRisher G Caves. "Traffic Stops and the New Exclusionary Rule Regime: Why Harris, Hudson, and Herring Mandate That the Discovery of an Outstanding Arrest Warrant Attenuate the Taint of an Illegal Traffic Stop Except in the Case of A Flagrant Fourth Amendment Violation" ExpressO (2013)
Available at: http://works.bepress.com/risher_caves/1/