Saturday, December 19, 2009
Lauren Altdoerffer has a post at Crime and Consequences, commenting on a California appellate court's decision in People v. Branner
that the exclusionary rule did not prevent the use of evidence obtained by an officer relying on a rule of the U.S. Supreme Court even when the Court later changed its mind about the rule. According to the majority, "the guilty should not go free when the constable did precisely what the U.S. Supreme Court told him he could do, but the Court later decides it was the one who blundered."
. . .
The court's debate presents some interesting questions on the deterrent purpose of the exclusionary rule and whether the Branner should benefit from Gant's retroactive effect.
The opinion is here.