REVISITING THE APPLICATION OF THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE TO THE GOOD FAITH EXCEPTIONS IN LIGHT OF HUDSON V. MICHIGANUniversity of San Francisco Law Review (2007)
AbstractIn Hudson v. Michigan, 126 S. Ct. 2159 (2006), the United States Supreme Court overruled decades of precedent and held that evidence obtained in violation of the “knock and announce” rule was admissible in the prosecutions case in chief against the defendant even though this evidence was technically unconstitutionally obtained. In doing so, the Court upheld the knock and announce rule, but strictly applied a “cost/benefit analysis” to conclude that the “exclusionary rule” was not applicable in this context. This analysis is consistent with other exceptions to the exclusionary rule established by the Court as well as with the “good faith” exceptions to the exclusionary rule when an officer reasonably relies upon a statute later held unconstitutional or upon a warrant later held invalid. In each of these instances, a technical constitutional violation has occurred, but the Court has held the evidence admissible because the goal of the exclusionary rule is not furthered by excluding such evidence. In establishing the good faith exceptions, the Court carved out a number of exceptions to the good faith exceptions where the Court concludes the exclusionary rule is applicable. When applying the cost/benefit analysis as applied in Hudson, however, it is apparent that in most of those instances, the evidence similarly should not be excluded. In those instances the costs of excluding the evidence outweighs the deterrent benefit of exclusion and therefore, the evidence should be admitted at trial against a defendant in the prosecutions case in chief. This article thoroughly explains the United States Supreme Court's analysis in Hudson for application of the exclusionary rule and details the factors the Court considered in conducting the cost/benefit analysis. The article demonstrates how this analysis has been used to establish the exceptions to the exclusionary rule including the good faith exceptions. The article then uses the cost/benefit analysis to demonstrate that when applied to the exceptions to the good faith exceptions, the exclusionary rule is not appropriately applied. Although this analysis would overrule precedent providing for the exclusion of this evidence, admitting the evidence is consistent with the Court’s analysis of when the exclusionary rule should be applied. The article concludes by addressing what implications, if any, Hudson may have on Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, as well as on future application of the exclusionary rule.
- "Exclusionary Rule",
- Hudson v. Michigan,
- "Good Faith" Exceptions,
- "Knock and Announce" Rule,
- "cost/benefit analysis",
- Fourth Amendment
Publication DateWinter September, 2007
Citation InformationGREY, SHENEQUA L., "REVISITING THE APPLICATION OF THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE TO THE GOOD FAITH EXCEPTIONS IN LIGHT OF HUDSON V. MICHIGAN"42 U.S.F. L. REV. 621 (2007).