exclusionary rule in Oklahoma

2018The issue before the Supreme Court was "[w]hether the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule should be modified so as not to bar the admission of evidence seized in reasonable, good-faith reliance on a search warrant that is subsequently held to be defective." Leon , 468 U.S. at 905 , 104 S.Ct. 3405 . ¶ 16 The Supreme Court held that the exclusionary rule should not act to bar law enforcement activities that are objectively reasonable.

2018The issue before the Supreme Court was "[w]hether the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule should be modified so as not to bar the admission of evidence seized in reasonable, good-faith reliance on a search warrant that is subsequently held to be defective." Leon , 468 U.S. at 905 , 104 S.Ct. 3405 . ¶ 16 The Supreme Court held that the exclusionary rule should not act to bar law enforcement activities that are objectively reasonable.

2024So too, the interests/purpose of Section 1228 have nothing to do with the seizure of evidence pursuant to a valid search warrant. ¶28 As far as the use of the Exclusionary Rule as a legal deterrent is concerned, Oklahoma has numerous legal methods for a violation of Section 1228 including but not limited to actions under the Oklahoma Government Tort Claims Act, 51 O.S. § 151 22 O.S. § 1240 Sittingdown , 2010 OK CR 22 Illinois v. Krull , 480 U.S. 340, 347 (1987), this Court said; "the 'prime purpose' of the exclusionary rule 'is to deter future unlawful police conduct and thereby effectuate the

2017Once Appellee was stopped, Officer Rogers' actions comported with 22 O.S.2011, § 205, which provides "[a] private person who has arrested another for the commission of a public offense, must, without unnecessary delay, take him before a magistrate or deliver him to a peace officer." Having already previously alerted the Broken Arrow Police Department, Officer Rogers simply detained Appellee and awaited the arrival of local law enforcement so that they could take the matter over and conduct an investigation. ¶15 As a final note, justice is not served by the application of the exclusionary rule

2024So too, the interests/purpose of Section 1228 have nothing to do with the seizure of evidence pursuant to a valid search warrant. ¶28 As far as the use of the Exclusionary Rule as a legal deterrent is concerned, Oklahoma has numerous legal methods for a violation of Section 1228 including but not limited to actions under the Oklahoma Government Tort Claims Act, 51 O.S. § 151 22 O.S. § 1240 Sittingdown , 2010 OK CR 22 Illinois v. Krull , 480 U.S. 340, 347 (1987), this Court said; "the 'prime purpose' of the exclusionary rule 'is to deter future unlawful police conduct and thereby effectuate the

2024So too, the interests/purpose of Section 1228 have nothing to do with the seizure of evidence pursuant to a valid search warrant. ¶28 As far as the use of the Exclusionary Rule as a legal deterrent is concerned, Oklahoma has numerous legal methods for a violation of Section 1228 including but not limited to actions under the Oklahoma Government Tort Claims Act, 51 O.S. § 151 22 O.S. § 1240 Sittingdown , 2010 OK CR 22 Illinois v. Krull , 480 U.S. 340, 347 (1987), this Court said; "the 'prime purpose' of the exclusionary rule 'is to deter future unlawful police conduct and thereby effectuate the

2024Since the interests that were violated in this case have nothing to do with the seizure of the evidence, the exclusionary rule is inapplicable." 547 U.S. at 593-94 . ¶17 The second requirement examined by the Hudson court for application of the Exclusionary Rule was whether "its deterrence benefits outweigh its 'substantial social costs.'" 547 U.S. at 594 .

2024Since the interests that were violated in this case have nothing to do with the seizure of the evidence, the exclusionary rule is inapplicable." 547 U.S. at 593-94 . ¶17 The second requirement examined by the Hudson court for application of the Exclusionary Rule was whether "its deterrence benefits outweigh its 'substantial social costs.'" 547 U.S. at 594 .

2024Davis v. United States , 564 U.S. 229, 246 (2011) ("[T]he sole purpose of the exclusionary rule is to deter misconduct by law enforcement.") (emphasis in original).

2023Typically, the exclusionary rule “precludes the use in a criminal proceeding of evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment, ‘to “compel respect for the constitutional guaranty.” ’ ” State v. Banks-Harvey, 152 Ohio St.3d 368 , 2018- Ohio-201, 96 N.E.3d 262, ¶ 25 , quoting Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229, 236 , 131 S.Ct. 2419 , 180 L.Ed.2d 285 (2011), quoting Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206, 217 , 80 S.Ct. 1437 , 4 L.Ed.2d 1669 (1960).

2022Id. ¶17 The State's appeal raises two issues--(1) whether the trial court abused its discretion in determining that Ballenger's warrantless arrest was unlawful; and (2) if so, whether the trial court erred when it failed to apply the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule. ¶18 Warrantless arrests are governed by 22 O.S.Supp.2014, § 196 State v. Iven , 2014 OK CR 8 335 P.3d 264 Id. , 2014 OK CR 8 22 O.S.Supp.2014, § 196 ¶19 "[A] peace officer may make a warrantless arrest for a misdemeanor based on his personal observations at the time, as long as the observations amount to probable caus

2022Id. ¶17 The State's appeal raises two issues--(1) whether the trial court abused its discretion in determining that Ballenger's warrantless arrest was unlawful; and (2) if so, whether the trial court erred when it failed to apply the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule. ¶18 Warrantless arrests are governed by 22 O.S.Supp.2014, § 196 State v. Iven , 2014 OK CR 8 335 P.3d 264 Id. , 2014 OK CR 8 22 O.S.Supp.2014, § 196 ¶19 "[A] peace officer may make a warrantless arrest for a misdemeanor based on his personal observations at the time, as long as the observations amount to probable caus

2019See also Nix v. Williams , 467 U.S. 431, 444, 449-50, 104 S.Ct. 2501, 2509, 2512, 81 L.Ed.2d 377 (1984) (finding suspect's statement about location of victim's body was obtained in violation of his rights, but inevitable discovery doctrine applied where a search team had already been organized and was searching the same location as that identified by the suspect); Pennington v. State , 1995 OK CR 79, ¶ 42, 913 P.2d 1356, 1367 (holding even if suspect's statement identifying the location of a shotgun were suppressed, officers had probable cause to obtain a search warrant and would have inevitab

2019See also Nix v. Williams , 467 U.S. 431, 444, 449-50, 104 S.Ct. 2501, 2509, 2512, 81 L.Ed.2d 377 (1984) (finding suspect's statement about location of victim's body was obtained in violation of his rights, but inevitable discovery doctrine applied where a search team had already been organized and was searching the same location as that identified by the suspect); Pennington v. State , 1995 OK CR 79, ¶ 42, 913 P.2d 1356, 1367 (holding even if suspect's statement identifying the location of a shotgun were suppressed, officers had probable cause to obtain a search warrant and would have inevitab

2014T 8 In Baxter v. State, 2010 OK CR 20 , 238 P.3d 934 , this Court discussed application of the exclusionary rule.

2014T 8 In Baxter v. State, 2010 OK CR 20 , 238 P.3d 934 , this Court discussed application of the exclusionary rule.

2018See State v. Salathiel , 2013 OK CR 16 , ¶ 7, 313 P.3d 263 , 266.

2018See State v. Salathiel , 2013 OK CR 16 , ¶ 7, 313 P.3d 263 , 266.

2015Hill v. State, 1988 OK CR 251, ¶ 10 , 764 P.2d 210, 213 ("[the purpose of the exclusionary rule is to deter police misconduct and to provide an effective remedy for unreasonable searches and seizures in violation of the fourth amendment of the United States Constitution and Article II, $ 80, of the OKkla-homa Constitution").

2015Hill v. State, 1988 OK CR 251, ¶ 10 , 764 P.2d 210, 213 ("[the purpose of the exclusionary rule is to deter police misconduct and to provide an effective remedy for unreasonable searches and seizures in violation of the fourth amendment of the United States Constitution and Article II, $ 80, of the OKkla-homa Constitution").

1982The purpose of this exclusionary rule is to deter "unlawful police conduct and thereby effectuate the guarantee of the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures." United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 347 , 94 S.Ct. 613, 619 , 38 L.Ed.2d 561 (1974).

1982The purpose of this exclusionary rule is to deter "unlawful police conduct and thereby effectuate the guarantee of the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures." United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 347 , 94 S.Ct. 613, 619 , 38 L.Ed.2d 561 (1974).

2024ROWLAND, P.J., SPECIALLY CONCURRING: ¶1 I concur in reversing the district court's order suppressing the evidence in this case, and in overruling Brumfield v. State , 2007 OK CR 10 155 P.3d 826 22 O.S.2021, § 1228 Brumfield , rarely if ever should the exclusionary rule be employed to remedy a statutory violation unless the statute itself so provides. ¶2 The exclusionary rule is a judicially fashioned remedy to enforce the strictures of the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures.

2024ROWLAND, P.J., SPECIALLY CONCURRING: ¶1 I concur in reversing the district court's order suppressing the evidence in this case, and in overruling Brumfield v. State , 2007 OK CR 10 155 P.3d 826 22 O.S.2021, § 1228 Brumfield , rarely if ever should the exclusionary rule be employed to remedy a statutory violation unless the statute itself so provides. ¶2 The exclusionary rule is a judicially fashioned remedy to enforce the strictures of the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures.

2019See also Nix v. Williams , 467 U.S. 431, 444, 449-50, 104 S.Ct. 2501, 2509, 2512, 81 L.Ed.2d 377 (1984) (finding suspect's statement about location of victim's body was obtained in violation of his rights, but inevitable discovery doctrine applied where a search team had already been organized and was searching the same location as that identified by the suspect); Pennington v. State , 1995 OK CR 79, ¶ 42, 913 P.2d 1356, 1367 (holding even if suspect's statement identifying the location of a shotgun were suppressed, officers had probable cause to obtain a search warrant and would have inevitab

2019See also Nix v. Williams , 467 U.S. 431, 444, 449-50, 104 S.Ct. 2501, 2509, 2512, 81 L.Ed.2d 377 (1984) (finding suspect's statement about location of victim's body was obtained in violation of his rights, but inevitable discovery doctrine applied where a search team had already been organized and was searching the same location as that identified by the suspect); Pennington v. State , 1995 OK CR 79, ¶ 42, 913 P.2d 1356, 1367 (holding even if suspect's statement identifying the location of a shotgun were suppressed, officers had probable cause to obtain a search warrant and would have inevitab

2019Recognizing this requirement we have explained that "[t]he duty of a reviewing court is simply to ensure that the magistrate had a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed." Bland v. State , 2000 OK CR 11, ¶ 45 , 4 P.3d 702, 717 . ¶20 We further note that the District Court failed to determine whether the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule might apply under the facts of this case.

2019Recognizing this requirement we have explained that "[t]he duty of a reviewing court is simply to ensure that the magistrate had a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed." Bland v. State , 2000 OK CR 11, ¶ 45 , 4 P.3d 702, 717 . ¶20 We further note that the District Court failed to determine whether the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule might apply under the facts of this case.

2006The purpose of the exclusionary rule is to "deter police misconduct" and not "to punish the errors of judges and magistrates." Id. at 916 , 104 S.Ct. at 3417 ; Miles v. State, 1987 OK CR 179, ¶ 8 , 742 P.2d 1150, 1152 . ¶ 19 The purpose of the exclusionary rule is furthered by extending it to the facts of this case.

2006The purpose of the exclusionary rule is to "deter police misconduct" and not "to punish the errors of judges and magistrates." Id. at 916 , 104 S.Ct. at 3417 ; Miles v. State, 1987 OK CR 179, ¶ 8 , 742 P.2d 1150, 1152 . ¶ 19 The purpose of the exclusionary rule is furthered by extending it to the facts of this case.

2001McCubbin v. State, 1984 OK CR 37, ¶ 16 , 675 P.2d 461, 465 .

2001McCubbin v. State, 1984 OK CR 37, ¶ 16 , 675 P.2d 461, 465 .

1992This Court acknowledges that this holding represents a departure from our previous decisions in Chambers v. State, 649 P.2d 795, 797 (Okl.Cr. 1982), and Michaud v. State, 505 P.2d 1399, 1402-03 (Okl.Cr. 1973).

1982We find that the reasoning expressed in Michaud, supra, i.e. that the exclusionary rule applies to revocation hearings is still viable in this jurisdiction.

1984In addition, given the State's reliance in part on United States v. Williams, 622 F.2d 830 (5th Cir.1980), cert. den., 449 U.S. 1127 , 101 S.Ct. 946 , 67 L.Ed.2d 114 , the remarks of the California Supreme Court are instructive: The Attorney General calls our attention to the en banc decision of the Fifth Circuit in United States v. Williams (1980) 622 F.2d 830 , in which 13 of 24 judges announced in dictum their view that the exclusionary rule should not bar admission of evidence obtained by police officers acting "in good faith" even if its seizure involved a technical violation of the Fourt

1984In addition, given the State's reliance in part on United States v. Williams, 622 F.2d 830 (5th Cir.1980), cert. den., 449 U.S. 1127 , 101 S.Ct. 946 , 67 L.Ed.2d 114 , the remarks of the California Supreme Court are instructive: The Attorney General calls our attention to the en banc decision of the Fifth Circuit in United States v. Williams (1980) 622 F.2d 830 , in which 13 of 24 judges announced in dictum their view that the exclusionary rule should not bar admission of evidence obtained by police officers acting "in good faith" even if its seizure involved a technical violation of the Fourt

1984In addition, given the State’s reliance in part on United States v. Williams, 622 F.2d 830 (5th Cir.1980), cert. den., 449 U.S. 1127 , 101 S.Ct. 946 , 67 L.Ed.2d 114 , the remarks of the California Supreme Court are instructive: The Attorney General calls our attention to the en banc decision of the Fifth Circuit in United States v. Williams (1980) 622 F.2d 830 , in which 13 of 24 judges announced in dictum their view that the exclusionary rule should not bar admission of evidence obtained by police officers acting “in good faith” even if its seizure involved a technical violation of the Fourt

1984In addition, given the State's reliance in part on United States v. Williams, 622 F.2d 830 (5th Cir.1980), cert. den., 449 U.S. 1127 , 101 S.Ct. 946 , 67 L.Ed.2d 114 , the remarks of the California Supreme Court are instructive: The Attorney General calls our attention to the en banc decision of the Fifth Circuit in United States v. Williams (1980) 622 F.2d 830 , in which 13 of 24 judges announced in dictum their view that the exclusionary rule should not bar admission of evidence obtained by police officers acting "in good faith" even if its seizure involved a technical violation of the Fourt

1984In addition, given the State’s reliance in part on United States v. Williams, 622 F.2d 830 (5th Cir.1980), cert. den., 449 U.S. 1127 , 101 S.Ct. 946 , 67 L.Ed.2d 114 , the remarks of the California Supreme Court are instructive: The Attorney General calls our attention to the en banc decision of the Fifth Circuit in United States v. Williams (1980) 622 F.2d 830 , in which 13 of 24 judges announced in dictum their view that the exclusionary rule should not bar admission of evidence obtained by police officers acting “in good faith” even if its seizure involved a technical violation of the Fourt

1984In addition, given the State's reliance in part on United States v. Williams, 622 F.2d 830 (5th Cir.1980), cert. den., 449 U.S. 1127 , 101 S.Ct. 946 , 67 L.Ed.2d 114 , the remarks of the California Supreme Court are instructive: The Attorney General calls our attention to the en banc decision of the Fifth Circuit in United States v. Williams (1980) 622 F.2d 830 , in which 13 of 24 judges announced in dictum their view that the exclusionary rule should not bar admission of evidence obtained by police officers acting "in good faith" even if its seizure involved a technical violation of the Fourt

1984In addition, given the State’s reliance in part on United States v. Williams, 622 F.2d 830 (5th Cir.1980), cert. den., 449 U.S. 1127 , 101 S.Ct. 946 , 67 L.Ed.2d 114 , the remarks of the California Supreme Court are instructive: The Attorney General calls our attention to the en banc decision of the Fifth Circuit in United States v. Williams (1980) 622 F.2d 830 , in which 13 of 24 judges announced in dictum their view that the exclusionary rule should not bar admission of evidence obtained by police officers acting “in good faith” even if its seizure involved a technical violation of the Fourt

1984In addition, given the State's reliance in part on United States v. Williams, 622 F.2d 830 (5th Cir.1980), cert. den., 449 U.S. 1127 , 101 S.Ct. 946 , 67 L.Ed.2d 114 , the remarks of the California Supreme Court are instructive: The Attorney General calls our attention to the en banc decision of the Fifth Circuit in United States v. Williams (1980) 622 F.2d 830 , in which 13 of 24 judges announced in dictum their view that the exclusionary rule should not bar admission of evidence obtained by police officers acting "in good faith" even if its seizure involved a technical violation of the Fourt