CA3: Exclusionary rule doesn’t apply to sentencing unless enhancing sentence was reason for the search

The exclusionary rule doesn’t apply to sentencing factors unless the illegal search was intended to enhance the sentence. United States v. Torres, 926 F.2d 321 (3d Cir. 1991). “[W]e refused to follow Verdugo in Torres because the facts in Torres did not present a situation ‘where the record showed that evidence was illegally seized for the purpose of enhancing the sentence.’” citing Verdugo v. United States, 402 F.2d 599 (9th Cir. 1968), cert. denied, 402 U.S. 961 (1971). United States v. Gilliam, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 3405 (3d Cir. Feb. 7, 2022).

Officers came to this residence for a welfare check because they’d heard there was a potential robbery and hostage situation inside. The SWAT team didn’t show up because the officers were still looking. Some of their information was proving correct, and the occupants were slow coming to the door. The occupants consented to an entry, and the officers weren’t limited to the living room. If a robbery were underway, it wouldn’t be limited to the living room. United States v. Johnson, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21679 (N.D.W.Va. Feb. 7, 2022).*

This entry was posted in Emergency / exigency, Exclusionary rule. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.