arizona
evans
argued
december
decided
march
respondent
arrested
phoenix
police
routine
traffic
stop
patrol
car
computer
indicated
outstanding
misdemeanor
warrant
arrest
subsequent
search
car
revealed
bag
marijuana
charged
possession
respondent
moved
suppress
marijuana
fruit
unlawful
arrest
since
misdemeanor
warrant
quashed
arrest
trial
granted
motion
appeals
reversed
ground
exclusionary
rule
purpose
served
excluding
evidence
obtained
error
employees
directly
associated
arresting
officers
police
department
reversing
arizona
rejected
distinction
clerical
errors
committed
law
enforcement
personnel
similar
mistakes
employees
predicted
exclusionary
rule
application
serve
improve
efficiency
criminal
justice
system
recordkeepers
held
jurisdiction
review
state
decision
michigan
long
decision
fairly
appears
rest
primarily
federal
law
interwoven
federal
law
adequacy
independence
possible
ground
clear
opinion
face
accept
reasonable
explanation
state
decided
case
way
believed
federal
law
required
standard
determining
whether
decision
rests
upon
adequate
independent
state
ground
adopted
obviate
unsatisfactory
intrusive
practice
requiring
state
courts
clarify
decisions
satisfaction
provide
state
page
ii
judges
clearer
opportunity
develop
state
jurisprudence
unimpeded
federal
interference
yet
preserve
federal
law
integrity
michigan
properly
serves
purpose
disturbed
state
courts
free
interpret
state
constitutional
provisions
accord
greater
protection
individual
rights
similar
provisions
constitution
serve
experimental
laboratories
however
cases
interpret
constitution
free
final
authority
case
state
based
decision
squarely
upon
interpretation
federal
law
discussed
appropriateness
applying
exclusionary
rule
offered
plain
statement
references
federal
law
used
purpose
guidance
compel
result
reached
pp
exclusionary
rule
require
suppression
evidence
seized
violation
fourth
amendment
erroneous
information
resulted
clerical
errors
employees
exclusionary
rule
judicially
created
remedy
designed
safeguard
future
violations
fourth
amendment
rights
deterrent
effect
however
issue
exclusion
separate
whether
amendment
violated
amendment
expressly
preclude
use
evidence
obtained
violation
commands
exclusion
appropriate
rule
remedial
objectives
thought
efficaciously
served
framework
used
leon
determine
sound
reason
apply
exclusionary
rule
means
deterring
misconduct
part
judicial
officers
responsible
issuing
search
warrants
applies
case
exclusionary
rule
historically
designed
means
deterring
police
misconduct
mistakes
employees
see
addition
respondent
offers
evidence
employees
inclined
ignore
subvert
fourth
amendment
lawlessness
among
actors
requires
application
extreme
sanction
exclusion
see
ibid
fact
justice
clerk
testified
type
error
occurred
every
three
four
years
finally
basis
believing
application
exclusionary
rule
significant
effect
employees
responsible
informing
police
warrant
quashed
since
adjuncts
law
enforcement
team
engaged
ferreting
crime
stake
outcome
particular
prosecutions
application
exclusionary
rule
also
expected
alter
arresting
officer
behavior
since
indication
officer
acting
reasonably
relied
upon
computer
record
page
iii
pp
rehnquist
delivered
opinion
scalia
kennedy
souter
thomas
breyer
joined
filed
concurring
opinion
souter
breyer
joined
souter
filed
concurring
opinion
breyer
joined
stevens
filed
dissenting
opinion
ginsburg
filed
dissenting
opinion
stevens
joined
arizona
evans
chief
justice
rehnquist
delivered
opinion
case
presents
question
whether
evidence
seized
violation
fourth
amendment
officer
acted
reliance
police
record
indicating
existence
outstanding
arrest
warrant
record
later
determined
erroneous
must
suppressed
virtue
exclusionary
rule
regardless
source
error
arizona
held
exclusionary
rule
required
suppression
evidence
even
erroneous
information
resulted
error
committed
employee
office
clerk
disagree
january
phoenix
police
officer
bryan
sargent
observed
respondent
evans
driving
wrong
way
street
front
police
station
officer
stopped
respondent
asked
see
driver
license
respondent
told
license
suspended
officer
entered
respondent
name
computer
data
terminal
located
patrol
car
computer
inquiry
confirmed
respondent
license
suspended
also
indicated
outstanding
misdemeanor
warrant
arrest
based
upon
outstanding
warrant
officer
sargent
placed
respondent
arrest
handcuffed
respondent
dropped
cigarette
arizona
evans
officers
determined
smelled
marijuana
officers
proceeded
search
car
discovered
bag
marijuana
passenger
seat
state
charged
respondent
possession
marijuana
police
notified
justice
arrested
justice
discovered
arrest
warrant
previously
quashed
advised
police
respondent
argued
arrest
based
warrant
quashed
days
prior
arrest
marijuana
seized
incident
arrest
suppressed
fruit
unlawful
arrest
respondent
also
argued
good
faith
exception
exclusionary
rule
inapplicable
police
error
judicial
error
caused
invalid
arrest
app
suppression
hearing
chief
clerk
justice
testified
justice
peace
issued
arrest
warrant
december
respondent
failed
appear
answer
several
traffic
violations
december
respondent
appeared
pro
tem
justice
peace
entered
notation
respondent
file
quash
warrant
chief
clerk
also
testified
regarding
standard
procedure
quashing
warrant
procedure
justice
clerk
calls
informs
warrant
section
sheriff
office
warrant
quashed
sheriff
office
removes
warrant
computer
records
calling
sheriff
office
clerk
makes
note
individual
file
indicating
clerk
made
phone
call
person
sheriff
office
clerk
spoke
chief
clerk
testified
indication
respondent
file
clerk
called
notified
sheriff
office
arrest
warrant
quashed
records
clerk
sheriff
office
also
testified
sheriff
office
arizona
evans
record
telephone
call
informing
respondent
arrest
warrant
quashed
close
testimony
respondent
argued
evidence
obtained
result
arrest
suppressed
purposes
exclusionary
rule
served
making
clerks
clerk
sheriff
office
whoever
responsible
mistake
careful
making
sure
warrants
removed
records
trial
granted
motion
suppress
concluded
state
fault
failing
quash
warrant
presumably
find
distinction
state
action
whether
happens
police
department
trial
made
factual
finding
whether
justice
sheriff
office
responsible
continued
presence
quashed
warrant
police
records
divided
panel
arizona
appeals
reversed
believe
exclusionary
rule
intended
deter
justice
employees
sheriff
office
employees
directly
associated
arresting
officers
arresting
officers
police
department
therefore
concluded
purpose
exclusionary
rule
served
excluding
evidence
obtained
case
ibid
arizona
reversed
rejected
distinction
drawn
appeals
clerical
errors
committed
law
enforcement
personnel
similar
mistakes
employees
predicted
application
exclusionary
rule
hopefully
serve
improve
efficiency
keep
records
criminal
justice
system
finally
concluded
ven
assuming
deterrence
arizona
evans
principal
reason
application
exclusionary
rule
disagree
appeals
purpose
served
carelessness
clerk
results
unlawful
arrest
ibid
granted
certiorari
determine
whether
exclusionary
rule
requires
suppression
evidence
seized
incident
arrest
resulting
inaccurate
computer
record
regardless
whether
police
personnel
personnel
responsible
record
continued
presence
police
computer
reverse
first
must
consider
whether
jurisdiction
review
arizona
decision
respondent
argues
lack
jurisdiction
arizona
never
passed
upon
fourth
amendment
issue
instead
based
decision
arizona
statute
rev
stat
ann
adequate
independent
state
ground
alternative
respondent
asks
remand
arizona
clarification
michigan
long
adopted
standard
determining
whether
decision
rested
upon
adequate
independent
state
ground
state
decision
fairly
appears
rest
primarily
federal
law
interwoven
federal
law
adequacy
independence
possible
state
law
ground
clear
face
opinion
accept
reasonable
explanation
state
decided
case
way
believed
arizona
evans
federal
law
required
adopted
practice
part
obviate
unsatisfactory
intrusive
practice
requiring
state
courts
clarify
decisions
satisfaction
also
concluded
approach
provide
state
judges
clearer
opportunity
develop
state
jurisprudence
unimpeded
federal
interference
yet
preserve
integrity
federal
law
ibid
justice
ginsburg
overrule
michigan
long
supra
believes
rule
case
impedes
ability
serve
laboratories
testing
solutions
novel
legal
problems
post
opinion
long
describes
history
differing
approaches
determination
whether
judgment
highest
state
rested
federal
nonfederal
grounds
doubt
occasions
dismissed
writ
certiorari
occasions
vacated
judgment
state
remanded
might
clarify
basis
decision
see
ibid
latter
approach
always
achieve
arizona
evans
desired
result
burdened
state
courts
additional
work
ibid
believe
michigan
long
properly
serves
purpose
disturbed
state
courts
absolutely
free
interpret
state
constitutional
provisions
accord
greater
protection
individual
rights
similar
provisions
constitution
also
free
serve
experimental
laboratories
sense
justice
brandeis
used
term
dissenting
opinion
new
state
ice
liebmann
urging
impose
federal
constitutional
restraints
efforts
state
serve
laboratory
decision
today
state
arizona
remains
free
seek
whatever
solutions
chooses
problems
law
enforcement
posed
advent
computerization
indeed
freer
disabused
erroneous
view
constitution
requires
state
courts
appropriate
cases
merely
free
bound
interpret
constitution
free
final
authority
principle
enunciated
cohens
virginia
wheat
presumably
justice
ginsburg
quarrel
minnesota
national
tea
recognized
authority
final
arbiter
constitution
eroded
arizona
evans
lack
clarity
decisions
fundamental
state
courts
left
free
unfettered
us
interpreting
state
constitutions
equally
important
ambiguous
obscure
adjudications
state
courts
stand
barriers
determination
validity
federal
constitution
state
action
intelligent
exercise
appellate
powers
compels
us
ask
elimination
obscurities
ambiguities
opinions
cases
course
assures
important
federal
issues
argued
reach
adjudication
state
courts
final
arbiters
important
issues
federal
constitution
encroach
constitutional
jurisdiction
applying
standard
conclude
jurisdiction
reversing
appeals
arizona
stated
hile
may
inappropriate
invoke
exclusionary
rule
magistrate
issued
facially
valid
warrant
discretionary
judicial
function
based
erroneous
evaluation
facts
law
leon
useful
proper
negligent
record
keeping
purely
clerical
function
results
unlawful
arrest
thus
arizona
decision
suppress
evidence
based
squarely
upon
interpretation
federal
law
see
ibid
offer
plain
statement
references
federal
law
used
purpose
guidance
id
compel
result
reached
long
supra
arizona
evans
fourth
amendment
right
people
secure
persons
houses
papers
effects
unreasonable
searches
seizures
shall
violated
warrants
shall
issue
upon
probable
cause
supported
oath
affirmation
particularly
describing
place
searched
persons
things
seized
const
recognized
however
fourth
amendment
contains
provision
expressly
precluding
use
evidence
obtained
violation
commands
see
leon
wrong
condemned
fourth
amendment
fully
accomplished
unlawful
search
seizure
ibid
quoting
calandra
use
fruits
past
unlawful
search
seizure
work
new
fourth
amendment
wrong
leon
supra
quoting
calandra
supra
question
whether
exclusionary
rule
remedy
appropriate
particular
context
long
regarded
issue
separate
question
whether
fourth
amendment
rights
party
seeking
invoke
rule
violated
police
conduct
illinois
gates
see
also
havens
stone
powell
calandra
supra
exclusionary
rule
operates
judicially
created
remedy
designed
safeguard
future
violations
fourth
amendment
rights
rule
general
deterrent
effect
leon
supra
calandra
supra
remedial
device
rule
application
restricted
instances
remedial
objectives
thought
efficaciously
served
leon
supra
calandra
supra
exclusionary
rule
result
appreciable
deterrence
clearly
use
arizona
evans
unwarranted
janis
leon
examined
whether
application
exclusionary
rule
expected
alter
behavior
law
enforcement
officers
concluded
officer
conduct
objectively
reasonable
excluding
evidence
ends
exclusionary
rule
appreciable
way
painfully
apparent
officer
acting
reasonable
officer
act
similar
circumstances
excluding
evidence
way
affect
future
conduct
unless
make
less
willing
duty
leon
arizona
evans
supra
quoting
stone
powell
supra
white
dissenting
respondent
relies
hensley
argues
evidence
seized
incident
arrest
suppressed
victim
fourth
amendment
violation
brief
respondent
hensley
determined
evidence
uncovered
result
terry
stop
admissible
officers
made
stop
acted
objectively
reasonable
reliance
flyer
issued
officers
another
police
department
possessed
reasonable
suspicion
justify
terry
stop
hensley
determined
fourth
amendment
violation
never
considered
whether
seized
evidence
excluded
hensley
contradict
earlier
pronouncements
question
whether
exclusionary
rule
remedy
appropriate
particular
context
long
regarded
issue
separate
question
whether
fourth
amendment
rights
party
seeking
invoke
rule
violated
police
conduct
gates
supra
see
also
stone
powell
supra
calandra
respondent
also
argues
whiteley
warden
wyoming
state
penitentiary
arizona
evans
compels
exclusion
evidence
whiteley
determined
fourth
amendment
violated
police
officers
arrested
whiteley
recovered
inculpatory
evidence
based
upon
radio
report
two
suspects
involved
two
robberies
although
police
entitled
act
strength
radio
bulletin
determined
fourth
amendment
violation
initial
complaint
upon
arrest
warrant
subsequent
radio
bulletin
based
insufficient
support
independent
judicial
assessment
probable
cause
concluded
otherwise
illegal
arrest
insulated
challenge
decision
instigating
officer
rely
fellow
officers
make
arrest
ibid
arrest
violated
whiteley
constitutional
rights
fourth
fourteenth
amendments
evidence
secured
incident
thereto
excluded
trial
mapp
ohio
whiteley
supra
although
whiteley
clearly
retains
relevance
determining
whether
police
officers
violated
fourth
amendment
see
hensley
supra
precedential
value
regarding
application
exclusionary
rule
dubious
whiteley
treated
identification
fourth
amendment
violation
synonymous
application
exclusionary
rule
evidence
secured
incident
violation
subsequent
case
law
rejected
reflexive
application
exclusionary
rule
cf
krull
supra
sheppard
supra
leon
calandra
supra
later
cases
emphasized
issue
exclusion
separate
whether
fourth
amendment
violated
see
leon
supra
exclusion
appropriate
arizona
evans
remedial
objectives
rule
thought
efficaciously
served
see
calandra
supra
approach
consistent
dissenting
justices
position
illinois
krull
major
case
since
leon
sheppard
involving
exception
exclusionary
rule
case
found
exception
applies
officer
conducts
search
objectively
reasonable
reliance
constitutionality
statute
subsequently
declared
unconstitutional
krull
even
dissenting
justices
krull
agreed
leon
provided
proper
framework
analyzing
whether
exclusionary
rule
applied
simply
thought
application
leon
stated
rationales
le
contrary
result
dissenting
sum
respondent
persuade
us
abandon
leon
framework
applying
reasoning
leon
facts
case
conclude
decision
arizona
must
reversed
arizona
determined
support
distinction
drawn
clerical
errors
committed
law
enforcement
personnel
similar
mistakes
employees
even
assuming
responsibility
error
rested
justice
follow
exclusionary
rule
inapplicable
facts
ibid
holding
contrary
reasoning
leon
supra
massachusetts
sheppard
krull
supra
employees
responsible
erroneous
computer
record
exclusion
evidence
trial
sufficiently
deter
future
errors
warrant
severe
sanction
first
noted
leon
exclusionary
rule
historically
designed
means
deterring
police
misconduct
mistakes
employees
see
leon
supra
arizona
evans
see
also
krull
supra
second
respondent
offers
evidence
employees
inclined
ignore
subvert
fourth
amendment
lawlessness
among
actors
requires
application
extreme
sanction
exclusion
see
leon
supra
see
also
krull
supra
contrary
chief
clerk
justice
testified
suppression
hearing
type
error
occurred
every
three
four
years
app
finally
important
basis
believing
application
exclusionary
rule
circumstances
significant
effect
employees
responsible
informing
police
warrant
quashed
clerks
adjuncts
law
enforcement
team
engaged
often
competitive
enterprise
ferreting
crime
see
johnson
stake
outcome
particular
criminal
prosecutions
cf
leon
supra
krull
supra
threat
exclusion
evidence
expected
deter
individuals
failing
inform
police
officials
warrant
quashed
cf
leon
supra
krull
supra
indeed
clerk
responsible
erroneous
entry
police
computer
application
exclusionary
rule
also
expected
alter
behavior
arresting
officer
trial
case
stated
think
police
officer
bound
arrest
think
derelict
duty
failed
arrest
app
cf
leon
supra
excluding
evidence
way
affect
officer
future
conduct
unless
make
less
willing
duty
quoting
stone
powell
white
dissenting
chief
clerk
justice
testified
type
error
occurred
every
three
four
years
app
fact
clerks
discovered
arizona
evans
error
immediately
corrected
proceeded
search
files
make
sure
similar
mistakes
occurred
indication
arresting
officer
acting
objectively
reasonably
relied
upon
police
computer
record
application
leon
framework
supports
categorical
exception
exclusionary
rule
clerical
errors
employees
see
leon
sheppard
supra
judgment
arizona
therefore
reversed
case
remanded
proceedings
inconsistent
opinion
ordered
footnotes
justice
ginsburg
certainly
correct
notes
ince
long
repeatedly
followed
plain
statement
requirement
post
quoting
harris
reed
opinion
blackmun
see
also
illinois
rodriguez
opinion
scalia
pennsylvania
muniz
opinion
brennan
maryland
garrison
opinion
stevens
caldwell
mississippi
opinion
marshall
california
carney
opinion
burger
ohio
johnson
opinion
rehnquist
oliver
opinion
powell
cf
coleman
thompson
opinion
declining
expand
long
harris
presumption
instances
relevant
state
decision
fairly
appear
rest
primarily
federal
law
interwoven
law
justice
ginsburg
acknowledges
much
since
long
state
courts
remand
reinstated
prior
judgments
clarifying
reliance
state
grounds
post
citing
statistics
surely
jurisdiction
vacate
remand
judgment
clarification
post
also
must
jurisdiction
determine
whether
judgment
based
upon
adequate
independent
state
ground
see
abie
state
bank
bryan
solicitor
general
amicus
curiae
argues
analysis
similar
apply
personnel
also
apply
order
determine
whether
evidence
suppressed
police
personnel
responsible
error
state
made
argument
agree
record
case
adequately
present
issue
consideration
brief
amicus
curiae
accordingly
decline
address
question
arizona
evans
justice
justice
souter
justice
breyer
join
concurring
evidence
case
strongly
suggests
employee
departure
established
procedures
caused
record
respondent
arrest
warrant
remain
computer
system
warrant
quashed
prudently
limits
question
whether
employee
departure
established
procedures
kind
error
exclusionary
rule
apply
holds
error
agree
conclusion
join
opinion
holding
reaffirms
exclusionary
rule
imposes
significant
costs
society
law
enforcement
interests
thus
apply
deterrence
purposes
efficaciously
served
ante
limiting
single
question
however
hold
employee
mistake
case
necessarily
error
may
occurred
exclusionary
rule
might
apply
police
innocent
employee
mistake
may
may
acted
reasonably
reliance
recordkeeping
system
surely
reasonable
police
rely
say
recordkeeping
system
arizona
evans
agency
mechanism
ensure
accuracy
time
routinely
leads
false
arrests
even
years
probable
cause
arrest
ceased
exist
ever
existed
saying
nothing
new
said
respect
information
sources
police
use
informants
obvious
example
illinois
gates
indicated
informant
provides
information
certain
criminal
activities
specify
basis
knowledge
finding
probable
cause
based
information
upheld
unless
informant
known
unusual
reliability
citing
sellers
involving
informant
provided
accurate
information
one
hundred
instances
matters
investigation
see
generally
lafave
search
seizure
ed
supp
certainly
reliability
recordkeeping
systems
deserves
less
scrutiny
informants
course
comparison
informants
may
instructive
opposite
way
well
long
informant
reliability
pass
constitutional
muster
finding
probable
cause
may
defeated
showing
information
informant
provided
mistaken
see
id
citation
omitted
see
also
id
axiomatic
hindsight
may
employed
determining
whether
prior
arrest
search
made
upon
probable
cause
recent
years
witnessed
advent
powerful
recordkeeping
systems
facilitate
arrests
ways
never
possible
police
course
entitled
enjoy
substantial
advantages
technology
confers
may
however
rely
blindly
benefits
efficient
law
enforcement
mechanisms
comes
burden
corresponding
constitutional
responsibilities
arizona
evans
justice
souter
justice
breyer
joins
concurring
joining
opinion
share
justice
understanding
narrow
scope
hold
today
concurrence
join
well
add
answer
another
question
may
reach
us
due
course
far
dealing
fruits
computerized
error
concept
deterrence
exclusion
evidence
extend
government
whole
merely
police
ground
otherwise
reasonable
expectation
keeping
number
resulting
false
arrests
within
acceptable
minimum
limit
arizona
evans
justice
stevens
dissenting
justice
ginsburg
written
important
opinion
explaining
unwisely
departed
settled
law
interpreted
jurisdiction
expansively
michigan
long
join
dissent
conclusion
writ
certiorari
dismissed
addressed
merits
however
add
comment
holding
seems
assume
fourth
amendment
particularly
exclusionary
rule
effectuates
amendment
commands
limited
purpose
deterring
police
misconduct
constitutional
text
history
adoption
interpretation
identify
majestic
conception
amendment
protects
fundamental
right
people
secure
persons
houses
papers
effects
official
searches
seizures
unreasonable
amendment
constraint
power
sovereign
merely
agents
see
olmstead
brandeis
dissenting
remedy
violation
imposes
costs
sovereign
motivating
train
personnel
avoid
future
violations
see
stewart
road
mapp
ohio
beyond
origins
development
future
arizona
evans
exclusionary
rule
cases
colum
rev
exclusionary
rule
fairly
characterized
extreme
sanction
ante
justice
stewart
cogently
explained
implementation
constitutionally
mandated
sanction
merely
places
government
position
conducted
illegal
search
seizure
first
place
given
undisputed
fact
case
constitution
prohibited
warrantless
arrest
petitioner
nothing
extreme
arizona
conclusion
state
permitted
profit
negligent
misconduct
even
one
accepts
deterrence
sole
rationale
exclusionary
rule
arizona
decision
correct
merits
majority
reliance
leon
misplaced
search
case
authorized
presumptively
valid
warrant
issued
california
arizona
evans
superior
judge
contrast
case
involves
search
pursuant
arrest
made
warrant
outstanding
petitioner
holding
leon
rested
majority
doubt
exclusion
evidence
seized
pursuant
warrant
significant
deterrent
effect
issuing
judge
magistrate
reasoning
leon
assumed
existence
warrant
remains
wholly
inapplicable
warrantless
searches
seizures
fourth
amendment
warrant
clause
provides
fundamental
check
official
invasions
individual
right
privacy
harris
jackson
dissenting
see
generally
kamisar
exclusionary
rule
rest
principled
basis
rather
empirical
proposition
creighton
rev
leon
stands
dubious
limited
proposition
courts
look
behind
face
warrant
police
relied
good
faith
leon
exemption
judges
magistrates
deterrent
ambit
exclusionary
rule
rested
consistently
emphasis
warrant
requirement
officials
constitutionally
determined
role
issuing
warrants
see
leon
taken
terms
leon
logic
extend
time
warrant
issued
extend
clerks
functionaries
arizona
evans
work
building
police
officers
may
regular
direct
contact
police
judges
magistrates
phoenix
police
department
part
chain
information
resulted
petitioner
unlawful
warrantless
arrest
reasonably
presume
law
enforcement
officials
stand
best
position
monitor
errors
occurred
influence
mundane
communication
procedures
order
prevent
errors
presumption
comports
notion
exclusionary
rule
exists
deter
future
police
misconduct
systemically
see
stone
powell
dunaway
new
york
stevens
concurring
see
generally
kamisar
supra
stewart
supra
deterrent
purpose
extends
law
enforcement
whole
merely
arresting
officer
compare
ante
whiteley
warden
wyoming
state
penitentiary
consequently
phoenix
officers
good
faith
diminish
deterrent
value
invalidating
arrest
petitioner
seeks
minimize
impact
holding
security
citizen
referring
testimony
chief
clerk
east
phoenix
number
one
justice
particular
type
error
occurred
maybe
every
three
four
years
see
ante
apart
fact
clerk
promptly
contradicted
see
post
arizona
evans
slim
evidence
base
conclusion
computer
error
poses
appreciable
threat
fourth
amendment
interests
support
cites
case
see
ante
citing
johnson
overlooks
reality
computer
technology
changed
nature
threats
citizens
privacy
past
half
century
see
post
changed
reality
fraction
fourth
amendment
violations
held
resulted
unlawful
arrests
ever
noted
redressed
justice
jackson
observed
may
convinced
many
unlawful
searches
innocent
people
turn
nothing
incriminating
arrest
made
courts
nothing
never
hear
brinegar
dissenting
opinion
moreover
even
errors
computer
records
warrants
rare
merely
minimize
cost
enforcing
exclusionary
rule
cases
like
agree
justice
ginsburg
premature
adjudication
issue
particularly
unwise
much
learn
consequences
computer
error
well
efficacy
preventive
measures
see
post
one
consequence
holding
seems
immediately
obvious
serious
impact
otherwise
innocent
citizen
stopped
minor
traffic
infraction
arizona
evans
wrongfully
arrested
based
erroneous
information
computer
data
base
assume
police
officer
reasonably
relies
computer
information
immune
liability
action
course
held
respondeat
superior
unavailable
basis
imposing
liability
municipality
see
monell
new
york
city
dept
social
services
thus
courts
power
discourage
official
error
kind
must
application
exclusionary
rule
use
general
warrants
search
evidence
violations
crown
revenue
laws
understandably
outraged
authors
bill
rights
see
sales
new
york
weeks
power
places
liberty
every
man
hands
every
petty
officer
james
otis
quoted
works
john
adams
adams
ed
turn
illinois
krull
dissenting
offense
dignity
citizen
arrested
handcuffed
searched
public
street
simply
bureaucrat
failed
maintain
accurate
computer
data
base
strikes
equally
outrageous
case
course
error
led
fortuitous
detection
respondent
unlawful
possession
marijuana
suppression
fruit
error
prevent
prosecution
crime
cost
however
must
weighed
interest
protecting
wholly
innocent
citizens
unwarranted
indignity
judgment
cost
amply
offset
appropriately
jealous
regard
maintaining
integrity
individual
rights
mapp
ohio
reason
well
set
forth
justice
ginsburg
respectfully
dissent
see
stewart
road
mapp
ohio
beyond
origins
development
future
exclusionary
rule
cases
colum
rev
fully
aware
statements
question
whether
exclusionary
rule
applied
distinct
question
whether
fourth
amendment
violated
indeed
majority
twice
quotes
statement
opinion
illinois
gates
see
ante
note
eminent
members
justices
holmes
brandeis
harlan
stewart
expressed
opposite
view
see
olmstead
holmes
dissenting
brandeis
dissenting
whiteley
warden
wyoming
state
penitentiary
harlan
elkins
stewart
stewart
supra
majority
today
candidly
acknowledges
justice
harlan
opinion
whiteley
treated
identification
fourth
amendment
violation
synonymous
application
exclusionary
rule
evidence
secured
incident
violation
ante
justice
observed
dissent
illinois
krull
leon
relied
explicitly
tradition
judicial
independence
concluding
presented
evidence
contrary
relatively
little
cause
concern
judicial
officers
might
take
opportunity
presented
exception
authorize
unconstitutional
searches
joined
dissent
take
exception
majority
pronouncement
today
opinion
consistent
ante
eight
years
chief
clerk
justice
peace
occasions
warrant
quashed
police
notified
happen
rare
occasions
say
rare
occasions
many
times
eight
years
chief
clerk
arizona
evans
particular
like
maybe
one
every
three
four
years
something
like
happens
anything
done
office
correct
problem
well
one
happened
searched
files
make
sure
ones
three
ones
day
happened
fortunately
arrested
app
arizona
evans
case
portrays
increasing
use
computer
technology
law
enforcement
illustrates
evolving
problem
need
judgment
resolve
hastily
arizona
relied
principles
free
society
reaching
decision
reviews
reverses
arizona
decision
assumption
arizona
highest
sought
assiduously
apply
fourth
amendment
jurisprudence
thus
follows
presumption
announced
michigan
long
unclear
whether
state
decision
rests
state
federal
law
long
dictates
arizona
evans
assumption
state
relied
federal
law
basis
assumption
asserts
jurisdiction
review
decision
arizona
long
presumption
see
impedes
ability
serve
laboratories
testing
solutions
novel
legal
problems
apply
opposite
presumption
assume
arizona
ruled
state
people
constitutional
recognition
individual
security
unwarranted
state
intrusion
accordingly
dismiss
writ
certiorari
specifically
arizona
saw
growing
use
computerized
records
law
enforcement
development
presenting
new
dangers
individual
liberty
excluding
evidence
seized
result
incorrect
computer
data
arizona
anticipated
reduce
incidence
uncorrected
records
dissent
laments
high
costs
exclusionary
rule
suggests
application
purposeless
provides
offsetting
benefits
assertion
ignores
fact
arrest
warrants
result
denial
human
liberty
arizona
evans
therefore
among
important
legal
documents
repugnant
principles
free
society
person
ever
taken
police
custody
computer
error
precipitated
government
carelessness
automation
increasingly
invades
modern
life
potential
orwellian
mischief
grows
circumstances
exclusionary
rule
cost
afford
without
invoking
long
majority
presumes
arizona
relied
federal
law
long
instructs
opinion
discussing
state
federal
precedents
shall
deemed
rely
federal
law
absent
plain
statement
opinion
decision
rests
state
law
long
reasons
case
illustrates
arizona
evans
choose
opposite
plain
statement
rule
presume
absent
plain
statement
contrary
state
decision
kind
issue
rests
independent
ground
ii
arizona
evans
isaac
evans
arrest
exemplifies
risks
associated
computerization
arrest
warrants
though
arrest
fact
warrantless
warrant
issued
quashed
two
weeks
episode
suit
computer
reported
otherwise
evans
case
idiosyncratic
rogan
los
angeles
supp
cd
cal
similarly
indicates
problem
los
angeles
police
department
entered
ncic
computer
arrest
warrant
man
suspected
robbery
murder
suspect
impersonating
terry
dean
rogan
arrest
warrant
erroneously
named
rogan
compounding
error
los
angeles
police
department
failed
include
description
suspect
physical
characteristics
next
two
years
incorrect
incomplete
information
caused
rogan
arrested
four
times
three
times
gunpoint
stops
minor
traffic
infractions
michigan
oklahoma
see
another
case
genre
district
observed
inaccurate
listing
ncic
computer
defendant
marked
man
five
months
prior
arrest
time
arizona
evans
routine
check
police
well
result
defendant
arrest
booking
search
detention
moreover
happen
anywhere
law
enforcement
officers
access
ncic
information
defendant
subject
deprived
liberty
time
without
legal
basis
mackey
supp
arizona
evans
electronic
age
particularly
respect
recordkeeping
personnel
police
officers
neatly
compartmentalized
actors
instead
serve
together
carry
state
objectives
whether
particular
records
maintained
police
courts
dispositive
single
computer
database
answer
calls
artificial
distinguish
clerk
police
clerk
slips
practice
may
difficult
pinpoint
whether
one
official
employee
another
police
officer
caused
error
exist
persist
applying
exclusionary
rule
arizona
may
well
supply
powerful
incentive
state
promote
prompt
updating
computer
records
arizona
hardly
unreasonable
expectation
incentive
update
promptly
diminished
records
exempt
rule
sway
arizona
evans
historically
state
laws
source
state
courts
arbiters
individual
rights
linde
first
things
first
rediscovering
bills
rights
balt
rev
drafters
federal
bill
rights
looked
provisions
state
constitutions
models
moreover
many
adopted
constitutions
modeled
bills
rights
state
constitutions
rather
federal
bill
rights
ibid
recognized
fourteenth
amendment
constrains
actions
incorporates
provisions
federal
bill
rights
state
constitutional
rights
interpreted
state
courts
imposed
primary
constraints
state
action
brennan
state
constitutions
protection
individual
rights
harv
rev
state
courts
interpreting
state
law
remain
particularly
well
situated
enforce
individual
rights
institutional
constraints
observed
may
limit
ability
enforce
federal
constitutional
guarantees
sager
fair
measure
legal
status
underenforced
constitutional
norms
harv
rev
prime
among
institutional
constraints
reluctant
arizona
evans
intrude
deeply
areas
traditionally
regulated
aspect
federalism
touch
concern
state
courts
interpreting
state
law
iii
presumption
imperfect
barometer
state
courts
intent
although
easy
enough
state
say
requisite
magic
words
may
recognize
opinion
triggers
long
plain
statement
requirement
pplication
long
presumption
depends
whole
series
soft
requirements
state
decision
must
fairly
appear
rest
primarily
federal
law
interwoven
federal
law
independence
state
ground
must
clear
face
state
opinion
concepts
bator
meltzer
mishkin
shapiro
hart
wechsler
federal
courts
federal
system
ed
hereinafter
hart
wechsler
cf
coleman
thompson
declining
apply
long
presumption
summary
dismissal
order
arizona
evans
highest
state
satisfy
long
plain
statement
requirement
advance
blanket
disclaimer
new
hampshire
example
declared
hereby
make
clear
cites
federal
state
opinions
construing
provisions
new
hampshire
constitution
statutes
rely
precedents
merely
guidance
consider
results
bound
decisions
state
ball
see
also
state
kennedy
lest
doubt
cites
federal
opinions
interpreting
provision
oregon
law
finds
views
expressed
persuasive
considers
bound
understanding
federal
stated
reluctance
look
beneath
beyond
opinion
issue
order
answer
jurisdictional
question
see
long
may
render
blanket
declarations
ineffective
cf
hart
wechsler
protestations
presumption
shows
greater
respect
state
courts
asking
clarify
opinions
ring
hollow
long
simply
puts
burden
clarification
state
application
long
presumption
increased
incidence
nondispositive
determinations
instances
state
courts
remand
reinstated
prior
judgments
clarifying
reliance
state
grounds
westling
advisory
opinions
constitutionally
required
adequate
independent
state
grounds
doctrine
tulane
rev
january
june
decisions
involving
potentially
adequate
independent
state
grounds
reinstated
state
grounds
upon
remand
july
arizona
evans
january
decisions
reinstated
remand
even
reinstatements
render
opinion
technically
advisory
see
hart
wechsler
suggest
unnecessarily
spent
resources
cases
better
left
time
question
solution
long
presumption
sum
departs
traditional
understanding
every
federal
without
jurisdiction
unless
contrary
appears
affirmatively
record
delaware
van
arsdall
stevens
dissenting
quoting
king
bridge
otoe
county
sync
principle
avoid
constitutional
questions
alternative
basis
decision
fairly
presents
ashwander
tva
brandeis
concurring
critically
case
shows
long
presumption
interferes
prematurely
endeavors
explore
different
solutions
new
problems
facing
modern
society
recognize
ince
long
repeatedly
followed
plain
statement
requirement
harris
reed
precedent
overruled
absent
strong
cause
long
ruling
virtual
regarding
guidelines
determining
reviewability
state
decisions
situations
state
opinion
absolutely
clear
bases
rests
traditional
presumption
lacked
jurisdiction
unless
authority
review
clear
face
state
opinion
faced
uncertainty
past
occasionally
remanded
cases
state
clarification
commonly
deny
jurisdiction
uncertainty
arizona
evans
gunther
constitutional
law
ed
arizona
evans
many
instances
recognized
frontier
legal
problems
presented
periods
percolation
diverse
opinions
state
federal
appellate
courts
may
yield
better
informed
enduring
final
pronouncement
see
mccray
new
york
stevens
respecting
denial
petitions
writs
certiorari
vote
deny
certiorari
cases
reflect
disagreement
justice
marshall
appraisal
importance
underlying
issue
judgment
sound
exercise
discretion
allow
various
serve
laboratories
issue
receives
study
addressed
long
presumption
becomes
operative
two
conditions
met
decision
must
fairly
appea
rest
primarily
federal
law
interwoven
federal
law
arizona
evans
adequacy
independence
possible
state
law
ground
must
clear
face
opinion
recognize
accord
long
point
cases
presumption
concerning
exercise
jurisdiction
yield
exceptional
instances
vacation
state
judgment
remand
clarification
decision
order
see
may
certain
circumstances
clarification
necessary
desirable
foreclosed
taking
appropriate
action
capital
cities
media
toole
per
curiam
decision
vacating
judgment
remanding
proceedings
state
might
deem
appropriate
clarify
ground
decision
see
also
finch
chapman
supp
nd
misinformation
long
retained
ncic
records
twice
caused
plaintiff
arrest
detention
aff
without
opinion
suggested
exclusionary
rule
deter
arizona
evans
carelessness
affect
intentional
reckless
misconduct
suggestion
runs
counter
premise
underlying
negligence
law
imposing
liability
negligence
lack
due
care
creates
incentive
act
greater
care
mistake
may
made
clerical
worker
alter
conclusion
application
exclusionary
rule
deterrent
value
risk
respondeat
superior
liability
encourages
employers
supervise
closely
employees
conduct
risk
exclusion
evidence
encourages
policymakers
systems
managers
monitor
performance
systems
install
personnel
employed
operate
systems
words
trial
mistake
evans
case
perhaps
negligence
justice
negligence
sheriff
office
still
negligence
state
app
long
generated
many
pages
academic
commentary
supportive
critical
presumption
see
bator
meltzer
mishkin
shapiro
hart
wechsler
federal
courts
federal
system
ed
citing
commentary
instances
state
decision
even
arguably
placed
state
ground
embodies
misconstruction
federal
law
threatening
gravely
mislead
engender
disuniformity
confusion
instability
order
vacating
judgment
remanding
clarification
suffice
see
hart
wechsler
see
also
supra
arizona
evans