{"id":1696,"date":"2008-03-04T10:42:12","date_gmt":"2008-01-16T06:54:33","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2008-01-17T06:54:33","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=1696","title":{"rendered":"Exclusionary rule would not apply to equal protection violations"},"content":{"rendered":"

Even assuming a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment for a selective enforcement stop, the exclusionary rule would not apply to it. United States v. Nichols<\/a>, 512 F.3d 789, 2008 FED App. 0026P (6th Cir. 2008):<\/p>\n

Even if the Fourth Amendment were implicated [in Whren<\/em><\/a>], any challenge to a search or seizure based on legitimate probable cause, but in which it is alleged the officer’s subjective motive was discriminatory, is doomed to fail. See Whren<\/em>, 517 U.S. at 813 (unanimously rejecting such a challenge and holding that “[s]ubjective intentions play no role in ordinary, probable-cause Fourth Amendment analysis”). Though the Court left open the door to equal protection challenges in the same context, it gave no hint as to what the appropriate remedy would be. See ibid<\/em>. Since we know from Whren that the evidence against Nichols would not be suppressed under the Fourth Amendment (even if the officers were improperly motivated by race), we are reluctant to graft that Amendment’s traditional remedy into the equal protection context. Indeed, we are aware of no court that has ever applied the exclusionary rule for a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause and we decline Nichols’s invitation to do so here. Rather, we believe the proper remedy for any alleged violation is a 42 U.S.C. \u00a7 1983 action against the offending officers. See, e.g., Farm Labor Org. Comm. v. Ohio State Highway Patrol<\/em>, 308 F.3d 523 (6th Cir. 2002) (rejecting officer’s qualified immunity defense and affirming partial summary judgment in favor of Hispanic motorists who brought equal protection challenge under \u00a7 1983).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1696","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1696","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1696"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1696\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1696"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1696"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1696"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}