The Fourth Amendment protects the “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” U.S. Const. amend. IV. In order to “compel respect for the constitutional guaranty,” the United States Supreme Court created the exclusionary rule. Davis v. United States, ––– U.S. ––––, 131 S.Ct. 2419, 2426, 180 L.Ed.2d 285 (2011) (citing Elkins v. United States,364 U.S. 206, 217, 80 S.Ct. 1437, 4 L.Ed.2d 1669 (1960)). When applicable, that rule forbids the use of evidence obtained by police officers in violation of the Fourth Amendment. It is well established, however, that a violation of the Fourth Amendment does not necessarily mean that the exclusionary rule applies. Herring v. United States,555 U.S. 135, 140, 129 S.Ct. 695, 172 L.Ed.2d 496 (2009) (“We have repeatedly rejected the argument that exclusion is a necessary consequence of a Fourth Amendment violation.”) It applies only when the benefits of deterring future Fourth Amendment violations outweighs the heavy costs of suppressing evidence. Herring,555 U.S. at 141, 129 S.Ct. 695. “The principal cost of applying the rule is, of course, letting guilty and possibly dangerous defendants go free.” Herring555 U.S. at 141, 129 S.Ct. 695 (citing Leon, 468 U.S. at 908); Davis,131 S.Ct. at 2427 (“Exclusion exacts a heavy toll on both the judicial system and society at large” because “its bottom-line effect, in many cases, is to suppress the truth and set the criminal loose in the community without punishment.”) As a result, exclusion “has always been our last resort, not our first impulse.” Herring,555 U.S. at 140, 129 S.Ct. 695 (citing Hudson v. Michigan,547 U.S. 586, 591, 126 S.Ct. 2159, 165 L.Ed.2d 56 (2006)).
United States v. Winn, 79 F. Supp. 3d 904, 912-13 (S.D. Ill. 2015)
United States v. Winn, 79 F. Supp. 3d 904, 912-13 (S.D. Ill. 2015)