CA2: Even assuming this supervised release search lacked RS, there were facts supporting it and the exclusionary rule will not be applied

Even if the supervised release search here was without reasonable suspicion, the purposes of the exclusionary rule aren’t served. “Even assuming [Officer] Dyckman acted unreasonably in failing to conduct further investigation before executing the search, this is not the kind of flagrant or abusive police misconduct that warrants application of the exclusionary rule. Bearing in mind that the exclusionary rule ‘applies only where it “results in appreciable deterrence,”’ Herring, 555 U.S. at 141 (alteration omitted) (quoting United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 909, 104 S. Ct. 3405, 82 L. Ed. 2d 677 (1984), and weighing the deterrent effect against the serious cost of ‘letting guilty and possibly dangerous defendants go free,’ United States v. Julius, 610 F.3d 60, 66 (2d Cir. 2010) (quoting Herring, 555 U.S. at 141), we conclude that, in the circumstances here, the substantial social costs of suppressing the evidence obtained during the search of Elder’s home outweigh the incremental deterrent value of granting it. Accordingly, we conclude that the district court did not err when it denied Elder’s motion to suppress.” United States v. Elder, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 7520 (2d Cir. Mar. 9, 2020).*

This entry was posted in Exclusionary rule, Probation / Parole search. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.