California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Paulsen, B282025 (Cal. App. 2018):
The Fourth Amendment grants all citizens the right to "'be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.'" (United States v. Calandra (1974) 414 U.S. 338, 346.)4 Evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment generally cannot be used in a criminal proceeding against the victim of the illegal search and seizure. (Calandra, at p. 347.) However, "the exclusionary rule has never been interpreted to proscribe the use of illegally seized evidence in all proceedings or against all persons." (Id. at p. 348.) "The extent to which the exclusionary rule is justified by its deterrent effect varies with the degree of law enforcement culpability." (Herring v. United States (2009) 555 U.S. 135, 144.) Thus, "[t]o trigger the exclusionary rule, police conduct must be sufficiently deliberate that exclusion can meaningfully deter it, and sufficiently culpable that such deterrence is worth the price paid by the justice system." (Ibid.) This is because the Fourth Amendment's purpose is to "'deter deliberate, reckless, or grossly negligent conduct, or in some circumstances recurring or systemic negligence.'" (People v. Robinson (2010) 47 Cal.4th 1104, 1124.)
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexsei.com.