Applying the more rational view, the good faith exception should be the only consideration if the Fourth Amendment question in the case is not necessary for instruction of police officers. United States v. Bell, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63451 (E.D. Penn. June 13, 2011):<\/p>\n
Even if one of these arguments was sound, the searches of the Range Rover and the items therein undoubtedly fall within the good faith exception to the warrant requirement. Where, as here, \u201ca motion to suppress evidence obtained pursuant to a warrant does not present a Fourth Amendment argument that should be decided in order to provide instruction to law enforcement or to magistrate judges, it is appropriate for a reviewing court to turn immediately to a consideration of the officers\u2019 good faith.\u201d United States v. Ninety-Two Thousand Four Hundred Twenty-Two Dollars and Fifty-Seven Cents<\/a>, 307 F.3d 137, 145 (3d Cir. 2002) (citations omitted). Mr. Bell\u2019s argument does not involve any \u201cnovel questions of law whose resolution is necessary to guide future action by law enforcement officers and magistrates,\u201d and therefore this Court must first determine whether the good faith exception to the warrant requirement applies. Id.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Grabbing defendant to get him to spit out a bag of drugs before he could swallow it, choking him some, and striking him on the thigh were not \u201cshocking to the conscience\u201d of the Court under Rochin<\/a>, so the officer\u2019s actions to get him spit out the drugs were not unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. (Following State v. Holloman, unpublished.) State v. Orloske<\/a>, 45 Kan. App. 2d
\n1034, 257 P.3d 794 (2011).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading