Davis v. United States
180 L. Ed. 2d 285, 564 U.S. 229, 2011 U.S. LEXIS 4560 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Searches conducted in objectively reasonable reliance on binding appellate precedent that is later overruled are not subject to the exclusionary rule.
Facts:
- Police in Greenville, Alabama, conducted a routine traffic stop of a vehicle driven by Stella Owens, in which Willie Davis was a passenger.
- Police arrested Owens for driving while intoxicated and arrested Davis for giving a false name to police.
- Both Owens and Davis were handcuffed and secured in the back of separate patrol cars.
- After the arrestees were secured, 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, a federal trial court, for being a felon in possession of a firearm.
- Davis filed a motion to suppress the revolver, acknowledging the search complied with binding precedent from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, but sought to preserve the issue for appeal.
- The District Court denied the motion to suppress, and Davis was convicted.
- Davis, as the appellant, appealed his conviction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
- While the appeal was pending, the Supreme Court decided Arizona v. Gant, which established a new rule making the search of Davis's car unconstitutional.
- The Eleventh Circuit held that the search violated Davis's Fourth Amendment rights under Gant but affirmed the conviction, creating a good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule for reliance on its own precedent.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the Eleventh Circuit's decision.
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 during a search that was conducted in objectively reasonable reliance on binding appellate precedent that was subsequently 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 precedent, their conduct is not culpable and thus there is nothing to deter. Applying the exclusionary rule in such cases would impose substantial social costs, such as suppressing the truth and letting criminals go free, without yielding any meaningful deterrent benefits. This holding is a logical extension of the good-faith exception established in cases like United States v. Leon, which focuses on police culpability rather than the errors of judges or legislators.
Dissenting - Justice Breyer
Yes. The exclusionary rule should apply. The majority's creation of this new good-faith exception is incompatible with the Court's retroactivity holding in Griffith v. Kentucky, which states that new constitutional rules apply to all cases pending on direct review. By applying the new rule from Arizona v. Gant to find a Fourth Amendment violation but denying Davis the remedy of exclusion, the Court creates an unfair system where a right exists without a remedy. This holding will also swallow the exclusionary rule, as most police errors could be characterized as non-culpable, thereby watering down the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures for ordinary citizens.
Concurring - Justice Sotomayor
No. The exclusionary rule does not apply in this case, and I concur in the judgment. Application of the rule is unwarranted here because the police relied on binding appellate precedent that was clear and unequivocal, meaning suppression could not reasonably be expected to yield appreciable deterrence. However, this case does not address the different question of whether the exclusionary rule should apply when the governing law is unsettled. In situations where the law is unclear, exclusion may have a deterrent effect by incentivizing officers to err on the side of constitutional behavior, a question which this decision does not resolve.
Analysis:
This decision carves out a significant new good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule, protecting police conduct that adheres to existing, binding appellate precedent, even if that precedent is later overturned. This prioritizes the deterrence rationale of the rule—which focuses on police culpability—over providing a remedy for every Fourth Amendment violation. The ruling may reduce the incentive for criminal defendants to challenge established precedent within their jurisdictions, potentially slowing the evolution of Fourth Amendment law. However, it provides law enforcement with a clear safe harbor, allowing them to rely on judicial pronouncements without fear that evidence will be suppressed due to a future change in the law.
