CAAF: Cost of exclusion outweigh benefits, so no exclusion

In a sex assault case, assuming the search of defendant’s cell phone was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment, the court concludes that the exclusionary rule should not be applied. M.R.E. 311. The error, if there was one, was the commanding officer, not the searching officer. The costs of exclusion outweigh any benefit of future deterrence. United States v. Lattin, 2023 CAAF LEXIS 184 (C.A.A.F. Mar. 31, 2023):

But as explained above, the costs to society and the benefits of future deterrence are not historical facts that are either true or false but instead are matters that depend on judgment. As the parties’ arguments show, the issue in this case is not one-sided. Regardless of whether we would agree with the military judge’s balancing of the costs and benefits on de novo review, we cannot say that the military judge’s decision was clearly unreasonable. The high costs of excluding the evidence are undisputed, and while exclusion of the evidence may produce some future deterrence, the degree of this future deterrence is subject to reasonable disagreement. We therefore conclude the military judge did not abuse his discretion in denying Appellant’s motion to suppress the evidence obtained from his phone under M.R.E. 311(a).

This entry was posted in Exclusionary rule. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.