{"id":2138,"date":"2009-08-29T09:29:11","date_gmt":"2008-06-09T08:08:58","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2008-06-09T08:08:58","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=2138","title":{"rendered":"Exclusionary rule serves no purpose where defendant accused of assaulting officer during illegal search"},"content":{"rendered":"

Exclusionary rule serves no purpose where the defendant assaults an officer during an illegal search. State v. Lusby<\/a>, 146 Idaho 506, 198 P.3d 735 (App. 2008):<\/p>\n

The rationale of these decisions is that, although officers may have conducted an unconstitutional search or seizure, a subsequent attack on the officer is a new crime unrelated to any prior illegality. Because there has been no exploitation of the officer’s unconstitutional conduct, the purpose of the exclusionary rule–to deter police misconduct–would not be advanced by suppressing evidence of the attack on the officer. As observed by the North Carolina Supreme Court in State v. Miller<\/em>, 282 N.C. 633, 194 S.E.2d 353, 358 (N.C. 1973), “Application of the exclusionary rule in such fashion would in effect give the victims of illegal searches [or seizures] a license to assault and murder the officers involved–a result manifestly unacceptable.” In sum, the exclusionary rule does not give the aggrieved individual carte blanche to commit criminal acts against a police officer with impunity merely because the officer erred by conducting an unlawful search or seizure.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Guns found in a search warrant for drugs may be seized because they are in plain view. United States v. Montgomery<\/a>, 527 F.3d 682 (8th Cir. 2008).<\/p>\n

Officers were on the property with an order to evict persons under a guardianship order. While there they encountered a locked door and obtained consent to enter from somebody without apparent authority. The entry was invalid because there was no reason to believe the person had authority. State v. Fancher<\/a>, 145 Idaho 832, 186 P.3d 688 (App. 2008).*<\/p>\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-2138","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2138","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=2138"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2138\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=2138"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=2138"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=2138"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}