What is the exclusionary rule in the context of warrantless searches?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Herrera, F076149 (Cal. App. 2019):
"A warrantless search is unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment unless it is conducted pursuant to one of the few narrowly drawn exceptions to the constitutional requirement of a warrant." (People v. Schmitz (2012) 55 Cal.4th 909, 916.) A search authorized by probationary terms is such an exception. Such terms may permit a probationer "to submit to searches of their residences at any time of the day or night by any law enforcement officer with or without a warrant." (People v. Woods (1999) 21 Cal.4th 668, 675.)
The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. However, when a violation occurs, the Fourth Amendment contains no express exclusionary provision. (Arizona v. Evans (1995) 514 U.S. 1, 10 (Evans).) Nonetheless, the United States Supreme Court has established an exclusionary rule. "Under this rule, evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment cannot be used in a criminal proceeding against the victim of the illegal search and seizure." (United States v. Calandra (1974) 414 U.S. 338, 347.) Nevertheless, the exclusionary rule does not
Page 7
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
