Davis v. United States (564 U.S. 229)
564 U. S. ____ (2011) (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Evidence obtained during a search conducted in objectively reasonable reliance on binding appellate precedent is not subject to the exclusionary rule, even if that precedent is subsequently overruled.
Facts:
- In April 2007, police in Greenville, Alabama, conducted a routine traffic stop of a vehicle driven by Stella Owens, in which Willie Davis was a passenger.
- The officers arrested Owens for driving under the influence and arrested Davis for giving a false name to police.
- Both Owens and Davis were handcuffed by the officers.
- The police secured both arrestees by placing them in the back of separate patrol cars.
- After securing Owens and Davis, officers searched the passenger compartment of Owens' vehicle.
- During the search, officers found a revolver inside the pocket of a jacket belonging to Davis.
Procedural Posture:
- Willie Davis was indicted in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama for being a felon in possession of a firearm.
- Davis filed a motion to suppress the revolver, arguing the search was unconstitutional but acknowledging it complied with binding Eleventh Circuit precedent.
- The District Court denied the motion to suppress, and Davis was convicted.
- Davis (as appellant) appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
- While the appeal was pending, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Arizona v. Gant, which effectively overruled the Eleventh Circuit precedent the police had relied upon.
- The Eleventh Circuit agreed the search violated Davis's Fourth Amendment rights under Gant but created a good-faith exception for reliance on precedent and affirmed the conviction.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the exclusionary rule apply to suppress evidence obtained from a search conducted in objectively reasonable reliance on binding appellate precedent that is later overruled?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Alito
No. The exclusionary rule does not apply when police conduct a search in objectively reasonable reliance on binding appellate precedent. The sole purpose of the exclusionary rule is to deter deliberate, reckless, or grossly negligent police misconduct. When police act in strict compliance with then-binding law, their conduct is not culpable and there is nothing to deter. Applying the exclusionary rule in such cases would not yield appreciable deterrence and would impose substantial social costs by requiring the suppression of reliable, trustworthy evidence and potentially setting criminals free.
Dissenting - Justice Breyer
Yes. The exclusionary rule should apply. Creating a new good-faith exception for reliance on precedent is incompatible with the Court's retroactivity jurisprudence established in Griffith v. Kentucky, which holds that new constitutional rules apply to all cases pending on direct review. This decision creates an artificial distinction between a right and a remedy, effectively giving Davis a right without a remedy. Furthermore, this broad new exception threatens to swallow the exclusionary rule itself, as most Fourth Amendment violations occur when officers believe in good faith that their conduct is lawful, not from deliberate misconduct.
Concurring - Justice Sotomayor
No. The exclusionary rule does not apply in this specific circumstance. Because binding appellate precedent from the Eleventh Circuit, in accord with nearly every other court, specifically authorized the police practice at issue, applying the exclusionary rule cannot be expected to yield appreciable deterrence. However, this case does not address the different question of whether the exclusionary rule applies when the governing law is unsettled. In cases where precedent does not specifically authorize a practice, exclusion might still be necessary to deter Fourth Amendment violations by incentivizing police to err on the side of constitutional behavior.
Analysis:
This decision carves out a significant new good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule, protecting evidence obtained by police who follow binding appellate precedent that is later overturned. It solidifies the Court's view that the rule's sole purpose is deterrence of culpable police conduct, rather than remedying a constitutional violation for the individual defendant. By separating the violation of a right from the availability of a remedy, the ruling may reduce the incentive for litigants to challenge existing Fourth Amendment precedents, potentially slowing the evolution of constitutional criminal procedure law, a concern the dissent highlights.
Unlock the full brief for Davis v. United States (564 U.S. 229)