New York Immigration Lawyers



Policy Considerations

This section contains excerpts that reflect public policy considerations in the context of the issues discussed.

Court Opinions on the Topic:

United States v. Armstrong et al. (1996)


Pages:1› ‹2› ‹3› ‹4› ‹5› ‹6› ‹7› ‹8› ‹9› ‹10› ‹11› ‹12› ‹13› ‹14

United States v. Leon Et Al. (1984)
The Honorable Justice BRENNAN, with whom JUSTICE MARSHALL joins, dissenting:
A chief consequence of today's decisions will be to convey a clear and unambiguous message to magistrates that their decisions to issue warrants are now insulated from subsequent judicial review. Creation of this new exception for good-faith reliance upon a warrant implicitly tells magistrates that they need not take much care in reviewing warrant applications, since their mistakes will from now on have virtually no consequence: If their decision to issue a warrant was correct, the evidence will be admitted; if their decision was incorrect but the police relied in good faith on the warrant, the evidence will also be admitted.

[...]

United States v. Leon Et Al. (1984)
The Honorable Justice BRENNAN, with whom JUSTICE MARSHALL joins, dissenting:
...[T]he good-faith exception will encourage police to provide only the bare minimum of information in future warrant applications. The police will now know that if they can secure a warrant, so long as the circumstances of its issuance are not "entirely unreasonable," all police conduct pursuant to that warrant will be protected from further judicial review. [...] The long-run effect unquestionably will be to undermine the integrity of the warrant process.

[...]

United States v. Leon Et Al. (1984)
The Honorable Justice STEVENS, concurring [...] and dissenting:
Law enforcement officers have long been on notice that despite the magistrate's decision a warrant will be invalidated if the officers did not provide sufficient facts to enable the magistrate to evaluate the existence of probable cause responsibly and independently. [...] Under the majority's new rule, even when the police know their warrant application is probably insufficient, they retain an incentive to submit it to a magistrate, on the chance that he may take the bait. No longer must they hesitate and seek additional evidence in doubtful cases.

[...]

...[T]he exclusionary rule is a better remedy than a civil action against an offending officer. Unlike the fear of personal liability, it should not create excessive deterrence; moreover, it avoids the obvious unfairness of subjecting the dedicated officer to the risk of monetary liability for a misstep while endeavoring to enforce the law. Society, rather than the individual officer, should accept the responsibility for inadequate training or supervision of officers engaged in hazardous police work.

[...]

Bond v. United States (2000)
JUSTICE BREYER, with whom JUSTICE SCALIA joins, dissenting:
At worst, this case will deter law enforcement officers searching for drugs near borders from using even the most non-intrusive touch to help investigate publicly exposed bags.

[...]

Pages:1› ‹2› ‹3› ‹4› ‹5› ‹6› ‹7› ‹8› ‹9› ‹10› ‹11› ‹12› ‹13› ‹14



 
Drug Info - list of authority sites on various drugs. StopTheDrugWar.org Media Awareness Project Drug War Facts - just what the website name says. Very informative. Cigarettes


© 2007 Yakov Spektor
Privacy Policy