federal exclusionary rule in Virginia

1991I disagree that the warrant is saved by application of the good faith exception to the federal exclusionary rule. [1] The good faith exception to the warrant requirement of probable cause, as announced in United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 , 104 S.Ct. 3405 , 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984), does not apply if "a reasonably well-trained [police] officer ... would have known that his affidavit failed to establish probable cause and that he should not have applied for the warrant." Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 345 , 106 S.Ct. 1092, 1098 , 89 L.Ed.2d 271 (1986).

1991I disagree that the warrant is saved by application of the good faith exception to the federal exclusionary rule. 1 The good faith exception to the warrant requirement of probable cause, as announced in United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984), does not apply if “a reasonably well-trained [police] officer . . . would have known that his affidavit failed to establish probable cause and that he should not have applied for the war rant.” Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 345 (1986).

2010We disagree. *746 As the United States Supreme Court stated in Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586 , 126 S.Ct. 2159 , 165 L.Ed.2d 56 (2006), a defendant seeking application of the exclusionary rule faces “ ‘a high obstacle’ ” in demonstrating that exclusion is appropriate.

2010We disagree. *746 As the United States Supreme Court stated in Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586 , 126 S.Ct. 2159 , 165 L.Ed.2d 56 (2006), a defendant seeking application of the exclusionary rule faces “ ‘a high obstacle’ ” in demonstrating that exclusion is appropriate.

2008The United States Supreme Court, however, recently reversed Moore in Virginia v. Moore, - U.S. -, -, 128 S.Ct. 1598, 1608 , 170 L.Ed.2d 559 (2008) (holding that "the arrest rules that the officers violated were those of state law alone, and as we have just concluded, it is not the province of the Fourth Amendment to enforce state law,” and thus, the Fourth Amendment "does not require the exclusion of evidence obtained from a constitutionally permissible arrest”). 2 .

2008The United States Supreme Court, however, recently reversed Moore in Virginia v. Moore, - U.S. -, -, 128 S.Ct. 1598, 1608 , 170 L.Ed.2d 559 (2008) (holding that "the arrest rules that the officers violated were those of state law alone, and as we have just concluded, it is not the province of the Fourth Amendment to enforce state law,” and thus, the Fourth Amendment "does not require the exclusion of evidence obtained from a constitutionally permissible arrest”). 2 .

2008Ellis also argued in the trial court that the search violated the rule established in Moore v. Commonwealth, 272 Va. 717 , 636 S.E.2d 395 (2006) (holding the federal exclusionary rule applied to violations of state arrest law).

2008Ellis also argued in the trial court that the search violated the rule established in Moore v. Commonwealth, 272 Va. 717 , 636 S.E.2d 395 (2006) (holding the federal exclusionary rule applied to violations of state arrest law).

2007Id. at 364 , 118 S.Ct. at 2020 .

2007Id. at 364 , 118 S.Ct. at 2020 .

2005NOTES [*] Judge Annunziata participated in the hearing and decision of this case prior to the effective date of her retirement on December 31, 2004 and thereafter by her designation as a senior judge pursuant to Code § 17.1-401. [1] The Virginia Supreme Court's recent language in an order affirming this Court's judgment in Hunt v. Commonwealth, 42 Va.App. 537 , 592 S.E.2d 789 (2004) ( en banc ) (affirmed without opinion by an evenly divided court), neither compels nor supports a different result.

2005NOTES [*] Judge Annunziata participated in the hearing and decision of this case prior to the effective date of her retirement on December 31, 2004 and thereafter by her designation as a senior judge pursuant to Code § 17.1-401. [1] The Virginia Supreme Court's recent language in an order affirming this Court's judgment in Hunt v. Commonwealth, 42 Va.App. 537 , 592 S.E.2d 789 (2004) ( en banc ) (affirmed without opinion by an evenly divided court), neither compels nor supports a different result.

1974That doctrine is a facet of the federal exclusionary rule first enunciated in Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 (1914), and made applicable to the states in Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961).

1974That doctrine is a facet of the federal exclusionary rule first enunciated in Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 (1914), and made applicable to the states in Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961).