What was the US Supreme Court decision in US v Leon?
US v. Leon, (1984) established a "good faith" exception to the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule that allows evidence seized under an invalid warrant to be used in court if the police acted in "good faith," but the warrant is later determined to be defective due to insufficient probable cause.
US v. Leon established the "good faith" exception to the exclusionary rule in Fourth Amendment search and seizure cases. The exclusionary rule forbid the use of evidence obtained in an illegal search and seizure from being used in court, and is intended to prevent unlawful police action.
A good faith exception occurs when police submit truthful information to a judge or magistrate who then errs by issuing a warrant without sufficient probable cause. The police then execute the warrant under the assumption that it's valid, acting in "good faith."
If the warrant is later declared invalid due to a neutral error on the part of the issuing judge, the evidence obtained in the search may still be used in court because the police acted in "good faith," and did not deliberately violate the defendant's Fourth Amendment rights. The Court held that the purpose of search and seizure laws was to deter unlawful police action, not to punish judicial error.
If the warrant was issued because police lied or presented false information, the exclusionary rule remains in effect.
Justice Byron White, who delivered the opinion of the Court, explained the reasoning behind the justices' decision:
"The Fourth Amendment contains no provision expressly precluding the use of evidence obtained in violation of its commands, and an examination of its origin and purposes makes clear that the use of fruits of a past unlawful search or seizure "work[s] no new Fourth Amendment wrong." United States v. Calandra, 414 U. S. 338, 414 U. S. 354 (1974). The wrong condemned by the Amendment is "fully accomplished" by the unlawful search or seizure itself, ibid., and the exclusionary rule is neither intended nor able to "cure the invasion of the defendant's rights which he has already suffered." Stone v. Powell, supra, at 428 U. S. 540 (WHITE, J., dissenting). The rule thus operates as "a judicially created remedy designed to safeguard Fourth Amendment rights generally through its deterrent effect, rather than a personal constitutional right of the party aggrieved.""
United States v. Leon, 468 US 497 (1984)
For more information, see Related Questions, below.
Yes, when there is a preserved federal question involved in the state supreme court's decision. Federal questions like the constitutionality of a state law are allowed to be raised and determined in state courts. If the state action goes to the state supreme court, but one party alleges that the state supreme court decision is wrong because it mistakenly interprets the US Constitution or federal statute, the US Supreme Court may, if it chooses, take…
No. Neither the President nor Congress can overturn a US Supreme Court decision. Congress may rewrite unconstitutional legislation so it complies with the Court's decision. There are only a few ways a decision may be overturned: The Supreme Court may overturn a precedent set by an earlier Court by making a different decision in a later, similar case. The Supreme Court may reverse its own decision on rehearing (rare). Congress and the States may effectively…
Unless the 'other court' is a later US Supreme Court, no. A court case in the US, once decided on by the Supreme Court, cannot be appealed to any body, so the case is decided. However, the precedent set by a US Supreme court case can be changed by a later US Supreme Court case decision, as was the case when Brown v Board of Education changed the precedent set by Plessy v Ferguson.
That depends on the case. Often, the state supreme court is the end of the road for a case, making the decision of the state supreme court final and binding. Sometimes cases involved federal questions (issues arising under the US Constitution or federal law) that allow them to be appealed to the US Supreme Court. If the US Supreme Court hears such a case, it may affirm or overturn the state supreme court decision.
No, the US Supreme Court only reviews Executive Orders under its appellate jurisdiction, so someone would have to initiate a case challenging the order in US District Court first. If the decision of the District Court judge is appealed, the case typically goes to the US Supreme Court on direct appeal (skipping the Circuit Court), under the theory that both sides will fight an unfavorable decision until the Supreme Court makes a final decision, anyway…
Yes, they can. However, if the decision involves a question of federal or constitutional law and the case is petitioned to the US Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, and if the U.S. Supreme Court grants certiorari, and if the U.S. Supreme Court rules differently from the state supreme court, the state is bound by the U.S. Supreme Court decision under the doctrine of Stare decisis, which is abbreviated from a Latin phrase that…
There has to be a supreme court or people would appeal endlessly to a higher court. There has to be a court where the decision is final and there is no higher court to appeal to. The supreme court is there to make a ruling that is the end all decision to stop endless clogging up the overcrowded court system.
If a state court declares a state law unconstitutional, the state will probably appeal the case to the state supreme court. If a state court declares a federal law unconstitutional, the losing party in the case will appeal the decision in the federal courts. The case could ultimately be heard by the US Supreme Court; however, if a lower court reverses the state court's decision and either the appropriate US Court of Appeals Circuit Court…
A case can be appealed from a state supreme court to the US Supreme Court when there is a preserved federal question involved. A "preserved federal question" means the case raises issues about the US Constitution, federal law, or a US treaty at each step of the judicial process -- from trial through appeals. Federal questions about the constitutionality of a state law may be raised and determined in state courts. If the state action…
The US Supreme Court determines what is and is not constitutional, not Congress. If the Supreme Court makes a decision Congress opposes, they can write legislation to circumvent the decision, modify current legislation to comply with the letter of the ruling, or attempt to initiate a new constitutional amendment to overrule the decision (unlikely). Although they are not supposed to, Congress may thwart the Supreme Court by failing to pass legislation supporting the Court's decision.
The US Supreme Court is called the high court because it is the last court in which federal questions (questions of federal and constitutional law) can be decided. There is no forum above the Supreme Court in which to appeal a decision. In the United States, "high court" is simply a colloquialism for the US Supreme Court. In some countries, the "High Court" is part of the proper title for the court.