CA11: Riverside/Gerstein violation did not warrant suppression of statement

A Riverside/Gerstein violation does not require exclusion. Here, defendant’s confession was a product of free will. Lawhorn v. Allen, 519 F.3d 1272 (11th Cir. 2008). In footnote 25:

25. The exclusionary rule is not contained in the Fourth Amendment and, because a Fourth Amendment violation occurs when there is an unlawful search or seizure, there is not a separate Fourth Amendment violation for the use of the fruits of that search or seizure. Arizona v. Evans, 514 U.S. 1, 10, 115 S. Ct. 1185, 1191 (1995).

Other courts have held that wrongfully seized evidence may result in exclusion of the evidence. United States v. Davis, 174 F.3d 941, 942, 946 n.8 (8th Cir. 1999) (affirming the suppression of a statement because it was obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment, but declining to decide whether suppression was “necessarily the appropriate remedy” for such a violation as it was not addressed before the district court). See also United States v. Fullerton, 187 F.3d 587, 592 (6th Cir. 1999) (denying suppression where, despite an unreasonable delay, another remedy was available); United States v. Sholola, 124 F.3d 803, 821 (7th Cir. 1997) (reserving the issue of suppression as an appropriate remedy issue for another day where the defendant had failed to establish a Riverside violation).