Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule in New Jersey

1987The Supreme Court’s grant of certiorari was limited to the issue advanced by the Government: “ ‘[wjhether 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.’ ” Id. at 905 , 104 S.Ct. at 3412, 82 L.Ed.2d at 686-87 . 26 The major premise of the Court’s holding in Leon is that the exclusionary rule is not required by the fourth amendment but rather operates as “ ‘a judicially created remedy designed to safeguard Fourth Amendment rights generall

1987The Supreme Court’s grant of certiorari was limited to the issue advanced by the Government: “ ‘[wjhether 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.’ ” Id. at 905 , 104 S.Ct. at 3412, 82 L.Ed.2d at 686-87 . 26 The major premise of the Court’s holding in Leon is that the exclusionary rule is not required by the fourth amendment but rather operates as “ ‘a judicially created remedy designed to safeguard Fourth Amendment rights generall

2016Ibid. 11 A-5432-14T3 that "our courts have rejected a good faith exception to the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule." Ibid. (citing State v. Novembrino, 105 N.J. 95, 157-58 (1987)).

2016Ibid. 11 A-5432-14T3 that "our courts have rejected a good faith exception to the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule." Ibid. (citing State v. Novembrino, 105 N.J. 95, 157-58 (1987)).

2005The panel observed that the “ ‘attenuation doctrine’ is a well established exception to the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule” that provides, “ ‘if the causal connection between the illegal conduct [by law enforcement] and obtaining the evidence has become so attenuated as to dissipate the taint, the evidence is admissible.’ ” Id. at 90-91 , 860 A.2d 962 (alteration in original) (citations omitted).

2005The panel observed that the “ ‘attenuation doctrine’ is a well established exception to the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule” that provides, “ ‘if the causal connection between the illegal conduct [by law enforcement] and obtaining the evidence has become so attenuated as to dissipate the taint, the evidence is admissible.’ ” Id. at 90-91 , 860 A.2d 962 (alteration in original) (citations omitted).

2005In his concurring opinion in Brown v. Illinois , Justice Powell explained that a "but for" rule was rejected by the Court in analyzing whether the taint of unlawful police conduct bars the use of its fruit because it was recognized "that in some circumstances strict adherence to the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule imposes greater cost on the legitimate demands of law enforcement than can be justified by the rule's deterrent purposes." 422 U.S. at 608-09 , 95 S.Ct. at 2264 , 45 L.Ed. 2d at 430 .

2005In his concurring opinion in Brown v. Illinois , Justice Powell explained that a "but for" rule was rejected by the Court in analyzing whether the taint of unlawful police conduct bars the use of its fruit because it was recognized "that in some circumstances strict adherence to the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule imposes greater cost on the legitimate demands of law enforcement than can be justified by the rule's deterrent purposes." 422 U.S. at 608-09 , 95 S.Ct. at 2264 , 45 L.Ed. 2d at 430 .

1988In United States v. Kurzer, 534 F.2d 511 (2d Cir.1976), the court in addressing these important differences, explained that the principle function of the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule is to deter unlawful police conduct, Tehan v. United States ex rel.

1987The Supreme Court’s grant of certiorari was limited to the issue advanced by the Government: “ ‘[wjhether 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.’ ” Id. at 905 , 104 S.Ct. at 3412, 82 L.Ed.2d at 686-87 . 26 The major premise of the Court’s holding in Leon is that the exclusionary rule is not required by the fourth amendment but rather operates as “ ‘a judicially created remedy designed to safeguard Fourth Amendment rights generall

1987The Supreme Court’s grant of certiorari was limited to the issue advanced by the Government: “ ‘[wjhether 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.’ ” Id. at 905 , 104 S.Ct. at 3412, 82 L.Ed.2d at 686-87 . 26 The major premise of the Court’s holding in Leon is that the exclusionary rule is not required by the fourth amendment but rather operates as “ ‘a judicially created remedy designed to safeguard Fourth Amendment rights generall

1986NOTES [1] United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 , 104 S.Ct. 3405 , 82 L.Ed. 2d 677 (1984), reh. den., ___ U.S. ___, 105 S.Ct. 52 , 82 L.Ed. 2d 942 (1984), creates a good-faith exception to the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule whenever a judge issues a warrant on the basis of sworn statements, presented in good faith, even though on analysis the statements do not establish probable cause.