United States v. Leon Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained

United States v. Leon | 468 U.S. 897 (1984)

Over a century ago, the United States Supreme Court created the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule. Generally, under that rule, evidence obtained during a police officer’s unconstitutional search or seizure may not be admitted at a criminal trial. In United States versus Leon, the Court was asked to decide whether an exception to the exclusionary rule should exist when officers act in good faith by executing a warrant, but the warrant is later determined to be defective for lack of probable cause.

Based primarily on information provided by an informant, officers in Burbank, California, suspected that Alberto Leon and others were involved in a drug-trafficking conspiracy. The officers obtained a warrant to search the suspects’ residences and automobiles. Warrant in hand, the officers conducted the searches, and discovered incriminating evidence against the suspects.

A federal grand jury charged Leon with drug trafficking offenses. Leon moved to suppress the evidence obtained during the search on the ground that there hadn’t been probable cause supporting the warrant. A federal district court granted the motion in part, finding that the information offered by officers in support of the warrant didn’t amount to probable cause. The court rejected the government’s argument that the exclusionary rule shouldn’t apply because the officers had acted in good faith, with an apparently valid warrant. The government appealed to the Ninth Circuit, which affirmed the district court’s order. The government then successfully petitioned the United States Supreme Court for review.

#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries

[Toshineko]

I think it's simple enough for police to escape lawsuits: Just show that you acted in good faith and that your actions are reasonable and you should escape frivolous lawsuits. Qualified immunity is just an excuse to escape from accountability from egregious rights abuses.