NM: Def’s new crime after arrest not to be excluded

“We agree with the Court of Appeals that the new crime exception to the exclusionary rule applies and we agree with its analysis of the issue. The exclusionary rule applies only where its deterrence benefits outweigh its societal costs. Strieff, 579 U.S. at 237. The societal cost of excluding evidence of these new crimes, which include violent behavior against police officers, exceeds the gains. See United States v. Pryor, 32 F.3d 1192, 1196 (7th Cir. 1994) (‘Police do not detain people hoping that they will commit new crimes in their presence …. Thus the gains from extending the rule to exclude evidence of fresh crimes are small, and the costs high.’). Accordingly, we decline to exclude the evidence of Defendant’s remaining crimes to which Defendant conditionally pleaded no contest.” State v. Penman, 2024 N.M. LEXIS 189 (Aug. 26, 2024).

The officers here were hired for off-duty security at a church to keep away a persona non grata pastor, which they did. Their actions look reasonable, and they weren’t required to second guess the paperwork they saw about whether plaintiff could be there. They get qualified immunity. “Here, although the officers acted without a court order, they had other evidence on which they relied—namely, the February 6 letter, which bolstered Jones and others’ claim of authority.” Couzens v. City of Forest Park, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 21671 (6th Cir. Aug. 27, 2024).*

This entry was posted in Attenuation, Exclusionary rule, Probable cause, Reasonable suspicion. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.