It seems that the supreme court has done away with the exclusionary rule in the case of simple police mistakes . If you don't want to read the text, I'll give the gist: Herring was stopped by police, who checked their computer system and discovered that he had an active warrant. However, the warrant had been recalled five months previous, and the computer system had not been updated. Prior to obtaining confirmation, the police arrested him, and did a search incident to that arrest, discovering amphetamine, and an unloaded pistol. The supreme court decided that since it was a simple mistake, that the exclusionary rule doesn't apply, and upheld the convictions for the gun and drugs.
To me, it's complete bullshit. It offers no repercussions for police misconduct.
I also recently discovered that if someone gives consent to search property that they have no authority to give consent for, the search is valid, given the police reasonably believe the person had common authority to consent to the search.
The fourth amendment is officially dead.
http://fe11.story.media.ac4.yahoo.com/news/us/story/ap/20090114/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_evidence
To me, it's complete bullshit. It offers no repercussions for police misconduct.
I also recently discovered that if someone gives consent to search property that they have no authority to give consent for, the search is valid, given the police reasonably believe the person had common authority to consent to the search.
The fourth amendment is officially dead.