Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
17 Maryland opinions name it 2 courts 1991–2024 4 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Maryland courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Leongreen2 sentences2024“Consequently, when police officers have acted in good faith pursuant to a search warrant that is later invalidated, excluding evidence would ‘only rarely’ serve the purposes of the exclusionary rule.” Id. (quoting Leon, 468 U.S. at 926 ). 33 While the Supreme Court has regularly discussed and considered the Leon exceptions in the context of criminal suppression hearings, it has also applied them in other contexts, including whether a police officer is able to rely upon the probable cause determination that attached to a warrant under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims in which the supporting affidavit f 2024“Consequently, when police officers have acted in good faith pursuant to a search warrant that is later invalidated, excluding evidence would ‘only rarely’ serve the purposes of the exclusionary rule.” Id. (quoting Leon, 468 U.S. at 926 ). 33 While the Supreme Court has regularly discussed and considered the Leon exceptions in the context of criminal suppression hearings, it has also applied them in other contexts, including whether a police officer is able to rely upon the probable cause determination that attached to a warrant under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims in which the supporting affidavit f | 3 | 14 |
Messerschmidt v. Millendergreen2 sentences2024See Messerschmidt v. Millender, 565 U.S. 535 (2012); Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335 (1986). 2024See Messerschmidt v. Millender, 565 U.S. 535 (2012); Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335 (1986). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Greenstreetgreen2 sentences2006The Court of Special Appeals determined that Rule 8-131(a) vests discretion in an appellate court to consider a new issue, which discretion it chose to exercise here because "neither party, at either level of court, has presented any authority directly bearing on the issue on which the circuit court urged counsel to inform it” and "the 'issue' is one that should be resolved.” State v. Greenstreet, 162 Md.App. 418, 427 , 875 A.2d 177, 182 (2005). 2 . 2006The Court of Special Appeals determined that Rule 8-131(a) vests discretion in an appellate court to consider a new issue, which discretion it chose to exercise here because "neither party, at either level of court, has presented any authority directly bearing on the issue on which the circuit court urged counsel to inform it” and "the 'issue' is one that should be resolved.” State v. Greenstreet, 162 Md.App. 418, 427 , 875 A.2d 177, 182 (2005). 2 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Rileygreen2 sentences2003Notwithstanding the importance of the exclusionary rule to Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, the Supreme Court determined in Leon, 468 U.S. at 918 , 104 S.Ct. 3405 , that “suppression of evidence obtained pursuant to a warrant should be ordered only on a case-by-case basis and only in those unusual cases in which exclusion will further the purposes of the exclusionary rule.” Moreover, in Sheppard, 468 U.S. at 989-90 , 104 S.Ct. 3424 , the Supreme Court “refuse[d] to rule that *100 an officer is required to disbelieve a judge who has just advised him ... that the warrant he possesses authorizes h 2003Notwithstanding the importance of the exclusionary rule to Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, the Supreme Court determined in Leon, 468 U.S. at 918 , 104 S.Ct. 3405 , that “suppression of evidence obtained pursuant to a warrant should be ordered only on a case-by-case basis and only in those unusual cases in which exclusion will further the purposes of the exclusionary rule.” Moreover, in Sheppard, 468 U.S. at 989-90 , 104 S.Ct. 3424 , the Supreme Court “refuse[d] to rule that *100 an officer is required to disbelieve a judge who has just advised him ... that the warrant he possesses authorizes h | 1 | 1 |
Nero v. Stategreen2 sentences2003Notwithstanding the importance of the exclusionary rule to Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, the Supreme Court determined in Leon, 468 U.S. at 918 , 104 S.Ct. 3405 , that “suppression of evidence obtained pursuant to a warrant should be ordered only on a case-by-case basis and only in those unusual cases in which exclusion will further the purposes of the exclusionary rule.” Moreover, in Sheppard, 468 U.S. at 989-90 , 104 S.Ct. 3424 , the Supreme Court “refuse[d] to rule that *100 an officer is required to disbelieve a judge who has just advised him ... that the warrant he possesses authorizes h 2003Notwithstanding the importance of the exclusionary rule to Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, the Supreme Court determined in Leon, 468 U.S. at 918 , 104 S.Ct. 3405 , that “suppression of evidence obtained pursuant to a warrant should be ordered only on a case-by-case basis and only in those unusual cases in which exclusion will further the purposes of the exclusionary rule.” Moreover, in Sheppard, 468 U.S. at 989-90 , 104 S.Ct. 3424 , the Supreme Court “refuse[d] to rule that *100 an officer is required to disbelieve a judge who has just advised him ... that the warrant he possesses authorizes h | 1 | 1 |
Ashford v. Stategreen2 sentences2003See Ashford v. State, 147 Md.App. 1, 23 , 807 A.2d 732 , cert. denied, 372 Md. 430 , 813 A.2d 257 (2002). 2003See Ashford v. State, 147 Md.App. 1, 23 , 807 A.2d 732 , cert. denied, 372 Md. 430 , 813 A.2d 257 (2002). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Garciagreen1 sentence1994See Gary v. State, 262 Ga. 573 , 422 S.E.2d 426, 428-29, 430 (1992); State v. Garcia, 547 So.2d 628, 629-630 (Fla. 1989); Commonwealth v. Upton, 394 Mass. 363 , 476 N.E.2d 548 , 554 n. 5 (1985); State v. Carter, 322 N.C. 709 , 370 S.E.2d 553, 559-62 (1988); Davis v. State, 831 S.W.2d 426 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Cartergreen2 sentences1994See Gary v. State, 262 Ga. 573 , 422 S.E.2d 426, 428-29, 430 (1992); State v. Garcia, 547 So.2d 628, 629-630 (Fla. 1989); Commonwealth v. Upton, 394 Mass. 363 , 476 N.E.2d 548 , 554 n. 5 (1985); State v. Carter, 322 N.C. 709 , 370 S.E.2d 553, 559-62 (1988); Davis v. State, 831 S.W.2d 426 (Tex. Crim. 1994See Gary v. State, 262 Ga. 573 , 422 S.E.2d 426, 428-29, 430 (1992); State v. Garcia, 547 So.2d 628, 629-630 (Fla. 1989); Commonwealth v. Upton, 394 Mass. 363 , 476 N.E.2d 548 , 554 n. 5 (1985); State v. Carter, 322 N.C. 709 , 370 S.E.2d 553, 559-62 (1988); Davis v. State, 831 S.W.2d 426 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Gary v. Stategreen2 sentences1994See Gary v. State, 262 Ga. 573 , 422 S.E.2d 426, 428-29, 430 (1992); State v. Garcia, 547 So.2d 628, 629-630 (Fla. 1989); Commonwealth v. Upton, 394 Mass. 363 , 476 N.E.2d 548 , 554 n. 5 (1985); State v. Carter, 322 N.C. 709 , 370 S.E.2d 553, 559-62 (1988); Davis v. State, 831 S.W.2d 426 (Tex. Crim. 1994See Gary v. State, 262 Ga. 573 , 422 S.E.2d 426, 428-29, 430 (1992); State v. Garcia, 547 So.2d 628, 629-630 (Fla. 1989); Commonwealth v. Upton, 394 Mass. 363 , 476 N.E.2d 548 , 554 n. 5 (1985); State v. Carter, 322 N.C. 709 , 370 S.E.2d 553, 559-62 (1988); Davis v. State, 831 S.W.2d 426 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
McDonald v. State
green
2 sentences2003Notwithstanding the importance of the exclusionary rule to Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, the Supreme Court determined in Leon, 468 U.S. at 918 , 104 S.Ct. 3405 , that “suppression of evidence obtained pursuant to a warrant should be ordered only on a case-by-case basis and only in those unusual cases in which exclusion will further the purposes of the exclusionary rule.” Moreover, in Sheppard, 468 U.S. at 989-90 , 104 S.Ct. 3424 , the Supreme Court “refuse[d] to rule that *100 an officer is required to disbelieve a judge who has just advised him ... that the warrant he possesses authorizes h 2003Notwithstanding the importance of the exclusionary rule to Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, the Supreme Court determined in Leon, 468 U.S. at 918 , 104 S.Ct. 3405 , that “suppression of evidence obtained pursuant to a warrant should be ordered only on a case-by-case basis and only in those unusual cases in which exclusion will further the purposes of the exclusionary rule.” Moreover, in Sheppard, 468 U.S. at 989-90 , 104 S.Ct. 3424 , the Supreme Court “refuse[d] to rule that *100 an officer is required to disbelieve a judge who has just advised him ... that the warrant he possesses authorizes h | 4 | 1998–2003 |
Massachusetts v. Sheppard
green
2 sentences2003Notwithstanding the importance of the exclusionary rule to Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, the Supreme Court determined in Leon, 468 U.S. at 918 , 104 S.Ct. 3405 , that “suppression of evidence obtained pursuant to a warrant should be ordered only on a case-by-case basis and only in those unusual cases in which exclusion will further the purposes of the exclusionary rule.” Moreover, in Sheppard, 468 U.S. at 989-90 , 104 S.Ct. 3424 , the Supreme Court “refuse[d] to rule that *100 an officer is required to disbelieve a judge who has just advised him ... that the warrant he possesses authorizes h 2003Notwithstanding the importance of the exclusionary rule to Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, the Supreme Court determined in Leon, 468 U.S. at 918 , 104 S.Ct. 3405 , that “suppression of evidence obtained pursuant to a warrant should be ordered only on a case-by-case basis and only in those unusual cases in which exclusion will further the purposes of the exclusionary rule.” Moreover, in Sheppard, 468 U.S. at 989-90 , 104 S.Ct. 3424 , the Supreme Court “refuse[d] to rule that *100 an officer is required to disbelieve a judge who has just advised him ... that the warrant he possesses authorizes h | 3 | 1998–2003 |
Malley v. Briggs
green
2 sentences2024See Messerschmidt v. Millender, 565 U.S. 535 (2012); Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335 (1986). 2024See Messerschmidt v. Millender, 565 U.S. 535 (2012); Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335 (1986). | 2 | 2024–2024 |
West v. State
green
2 sentences2008In West v. State, 137 Md.App. 314 , 768 A.2d 150 , cert. denied, 364 Md. 536 , 774 A.2d 409 (2001), we explained the purpose of the good faith exception as follows: The [Leon ] Court emphasized that “the exclusionary rule was designed to deter police misconduct rather than to punish the errors of judges and magistrates.” It said that “suppression of evidence obtained pursuant to a warrant should be ordered only on a case-by-case basis and only in those unusual cases in which exclusion will further the purposes of the exclusionary rule.” In this regard, the Court questioned whether the exclusio 2008In West v. State, 137 Md.App. 314 , 768 A.2d 150 , cert. denied, 364 Md. 536 , 774 A.2d 409 (2001), we explained the purpose of the good faith exception as follows: The [Leon ] Court emphasized that “the exclusionary rule was designed to deter police misconduct rather than to punish the errors of judges and magistrates.” It said that “suppression of evidence obtained pursuant to a warrant should be ordered only on a case-by-case basis and only in those unusual cases in which exclusion will further the purposes of the exclusionary rule.” In this regard, the Court questioned whether the exclusio | 2 | 2004–2008 |
Connelly v. State
green
2 sentences2008In West v. State, 137 Md.App. 314 , 768 A.2d 150 , cert. denied, 364 Md. 536 , 774 A.2d 409 (2001), we explained the purpose of the good faith exception as follows: The [Leon ] Court emphasized that “the exclusionary rule was designed to deter police misconduct rather than to punish the errors of judges and magistrates.” It said that “suppression of evidence obtained pursuant to a warrant should be ordered only on a case-by-case basis and only in those unusual cases in which exclusion will further the purposes of the exclusionary rule.” In this regard, the Court questioned whether the exclusio 2008In West v. State, 137 Md.App. 314 , 768 A.2d 150 , cert. denied, 364 Md. 536 , 774 A.2d 409 (2001), we explained the purpose of the good faith exception as follows: The [Leon ] Court emphasized that “the exclusionary rule was designed to deter police misconduct rather than to punish the errors of judges and magistrates.” It said that “suppression of evidence obtained pursuant to a warrant should be ordered only on a case-by-case basis and only in those unusual cases in which exclusion will further the purposes of the exclusionary rule.” In this regard, the Court questioned whether the exclusio | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Illinois v. Gates
green
2 sentences2004The purposes of the exclusionary rule are furthered, the Court instructed, “if it can be said that the law enforcement officer had knowledge, or may properly be charged with the knowledge, that the search was unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment,” id. at 919 , 104 S.Ct. at 3419, 82 L.Ed.2d at 696 (citing Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 260-61 , 103 S.Ct. 2317, 2344 , 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983)), and, therefore, had no “reasonable grounds for believing that the warrant was properly issued.” Id. at 923, 104 S.Ct. at 3420, 82 L.Ed.2d at 698 . 2004The purposes of the exclusionary rule are furthered, the Court instructed, “if it can be said that the law enforcement officer had knowledge, or may properly be charged with the knowledge, that the search was unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment,” id. at 919 , 104 S.Ct. at 3419, 82 L.Ed.2d at 696 (citing Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 260-61 , 103 S.Ct. 2317, 2344 , 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983)), and, therefore, had no “reasonable grounds for believing that the warrant was properly issued.” Id. at 923, 104 S.Ct. at 3420, 82 L.Ed.2d at 698 . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
In re Ouimette
neutral
1 sentence2002In Braxton v. State, 123 Md.App. 599 , 720 A.2d 27 (1998), Judge Hollander, writing for this Court, set forth a detailed discussion of the good faith exception stating, in part, as follows: Notwithstanding the importance of the exclusionary rule to the Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, the Supreme Court determined that ‘suppression of evidence obtained pursuant to a warrant should be ordered only on a case-by-case basis and only in those unusual cases in which exclusion will further the purposes of the exclusionary rule.’ Leon, 468 U.S. at 918 , 104 S.Ct. 3405 ; McDonald, 347 Md. at 468 , 701 *3 | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Braxton v. State
green
2 sentences2002In Braxton v. State, 123 Md.App. 599 , 720 A.2d 27 (1998), Judge Hollander, writing for this Court, set forth a detailed discussion of the good faith exception stating, in part, as follows: Notwithstanding the importance of the exclusionary rule to the Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, the Supreme Court determined that ‘suppression of evidence obtained pursuant to a warrant should be ordered only on a case-by-case basis and only in those unusual cases in which exclusion will further the purposes of the exclusionary rule.’ Leon, 468 U.S. at 918 , 104 S.Ct. 3405 ; McDonald, 347 Md. at 468 , 701 *3 2002In Braxton v. State, 123 Md.App. 599 , 720 A.2d 27 (1998), Judge Hollander, writing for this Court, set forth a detailed discussion of the good faith exception stating, in part, as follows: Notwithstanding the importance of the exclusionary rule to the Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, the Supreme Court determined that ‘suppression of evidence obtained pursuant to a warrant should be ordered only on a case-by-case basis and only in those unusual cases in which exclusion will further the purposes of the exclusionary rule.’ Leon, 468 U.S. at 918 , 104 S.Ct. 3405 ; McDonald, 347 Md. at 468 , 701 *3 | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Davis v. State
green
1 sentence1994See Gary v. State, 262 Ga. 573 , 422 S.E.2d 426, 428-29, 430 (1992); State v. Garcia, 547 So.2d 628, 629-630 (Fla. 1989); Commonwealth v. Upton, 394 Mass. 363 , 476 N.E.2d 548 , 554 n. 5 (1985); State v. Carter, 322 N.C. 709 , 370 S.E.2d 553, 559-62 (1988); Davis v. State, 831 S.W.2d 426 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Commonwealth v. Upton
green
2 sentences1994See Gary v. State, 262 Ga. 573 , 422 S.E.2d 426, 428-29, 430 (1992); State v. Garcia, 547 So.2d 628, 629-630 (Fla. 1989); Commonwealth v. Upton, 394 Mass. 363 , 476 N.E.2d 548 , 554 n. 5 (1985); State v. Carter, 322 N.C. 709 , 370 S.E.2d 553, 559-62 (1988); Davis v. State, 831 S.W.2d 426 (Tex. Crim. 1994See Gary v. State, 262 Ga. 573 , 422 S.E.2d 426, 428-29, 430 (1992); State v. Garcia, 547 So.2d 628, 629-630 (Fla. 1989); Commonwealth v. Upton, 394 Mass. 363 , 476 N.E.2d 548 , 554 n. 5 (1985); State v. Carter, 322 N.C. 709 , 370 S.E.2d 553, 559-62 (1988); Davis v. State, 831 S.W.2d 426 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Childress v. United States
green
2 sentences1992(Footnote omitted) Apparently as a matter of law, the court concluded that a four day delay, two days of which occurred on the weekend, did not amount to “police administrative negligence.” 381 A.2d at 617 -18 n. 3. 1992(Footnote omitted) Apparently as a matter of law, the court concluded that a four day delay, two days of which occurred on the weekend, did not amount to "police administrative negligence." 381 A.2d at 617 -18 n. 3. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.