91 So. 3d 1003 - State v. Brock’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “If evidence was derived from an unreasonable search or seizure, the proper remedy is exclusion of the evidence from trial. State v. Benjamin, 97-3065 (La. 12/1/98), 722 So.2d 988 , citing Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 , 34 S.Ct. 341 , 58 L.Ed. 652 (1914). This exclusionary rule is designed to safeguard Fourth Amendment rights generally through its deterrent effect. Herring v. United States , 555 U.S. 135 , 129 S.Ct. 695 , 172 L.Ed.2d 496 (2009). However, the fact that a search or arrest was unreasonable does not necessarily mean that the exclusionary rule applies. The exclusionary rule is not an individual right and applies only where it results in appreciable deterrence. In addition, the benefits of deterrence must outweigh the substantial social cost of letting guilty and possibly dangerous defendants go free. Herring, supra . The United States Supreme Court has created a good faith exception to the exclusionary rule. In United States v. Leon , 468 U.S. 897 , 104 S.Ct. 3405 , 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984), the court held that evidence seized in a search pursuant to a warrant, which was invalid for lack of probable cause, need not be excluded at trial if the officers who conducted the search reasonably believed that the warrant was valid. United States v. Leon, supra ; State v. Long, 2003-2592 (La. 9/9/04), 884 So.2d 1176 . The court explained that the exclusionary rule "is designed to deter police misconduct rather than to punish the errors of judges and magistrates." Leon, ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Newsom