…in which the Court explores a professor’s complex argument to protect the integrity of the Court’s Fourth Amendment precedents.
Justice Stephen G. Breyer observed…
“[O]nce we do that it’s so complicated, only 14 people are gong to understand it and they’re not going to understand it, either.”
Justice Samuel Alito dryly comments...
“The Court invented the exclusionary rule. The Court invented the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule. Is there anything to prevent the Court from inventing a new exception to the exception to the exclusionary rule?”
###
Posts
2 Comments:
That is an interesting set of arguments, and yeah, I'm NOT one of the 14 that understood it... sigh...
According to Breyer, those 14 won't understand it either. Still, you have to give the good Professor credit for keeping the law alive. This argument is probably the first time in many years some of those on the bench (Breyer, Kennedy, Scalia) have actually had to go back to the books. It will be most interesting to see the eventual outcome.
As Alito noted, both the exclusionary rule and the good faith exemption are creations of the court, and of course he would love to reverse them since they represent that dreaded "legislating from the bench" scenario.
Funny thing though. The rule itself originated from a conservative leaning court (Weeks v. U.S.,) while the exceptions have root in liberal leaning courts (U.S. v. Leon and Massachusetts v. Sheppard.).
Post a Comment