{"id":1872,"date":"2008-05-03T09:18:27","date_gmt":"2008-03-12T05:16:14","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2008-03-12T05:16:14","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=1872","title":{"rendered":"CA11: <em>Riverside\/Gerstein<\/em> violation did not warrant suppression of statement"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>A <em><a href=\"http:\/\/caselaw.lp.findlaw.com\/scripts\/getcase.pl?court=us&amp;vol=500&amp;invol=44\">Riverside<\/a>\/<a href=\"http:\/\/caselaw.lp.findlaw.com\/scripts\/getcase.pl?court=us&amp;vol=420&amp;invol=103\">Gerstein<\/a><\/em> violation does not require exclusion. Here, defendant&#8217;s confession was a product of free will. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.ca11.uscourts.gov\/opinions\/ops\/200411711.pdf\">Lawhorn v. Allen<\/a>, 519 F.3d 1272 (11th Cir. 2008). In footnote 25:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>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. <a href=\"http:\/\/caselaw.lp.findlaw.com\/scripts\/getcase.pl?court=us&amp;vol=000&amp;invol=U10310\"><em>Arizona v. Evans<\/em><\/a>, 514 U.S. 1, 10, 115 S. Ct. 1185, 1191 (1995).<\/p>\n<p>Other courts have held that wrongfully seized evidence may result in exclusion of the evidence. <em>United States v. Davis<\/em>, 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 &#8220;necessarily the appropriate remedy&#8221; for such a violation as it was not addressed before the district court). See also <em>United States v. Fullerton<\/em>, 187 F.3d 587, 592 (6th Cir. 1999) (denying suppression where, despite an unreasonable delay, another remedy was available); <em>United States v. Sholola<\/em>, 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 <em>Riverside<\/em> violation).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>b2evALnk.b2WPAutP <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=1872\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/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-1872","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1872","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1872"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1872\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1872"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1872"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1872"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}