Leon Case, Case Study Example

The United States v. Leon case, as ruled by the Supreme Court (1984), appears to be in contrast to the exclusionary rule to the U.S. Constitution’s Fourth Amendment language about searches and seizures. It had been long held that the government was prohibited from encroaching on individual liberty. In Leon, the Court stated,

the Fourth Amendment contains no provision expressly precluding the use of

evidence obtained in violation of its commands, and an examination of its origin

and purposes makes clear that the use of fruits of a past unlawful search or seizure

work[s] no new Fourth Amendment wrong (Daly, 1984).

In Leon, police officers requested search warrants and affidavits prior to any search for culpable evidence. The paperwork, however, for gathering evidence, in this case, drugs, seemed to be out of line with the Fourth Amendment, so the evidence that was obtained was not allowed to be introduced as evidence at trial. At no time were the motives of the law enforcement officers in question. The Supreme Court overturned earlier rulings because of the good faith efforts of the arresting officers.

I disagree with the ruling and side with Justices Brennan and Marshall in their dissenting opinion in this case. A ruling such as this could cause law enforcement personnel to hold the intentions of the Fourth Amendment in low esteem. We must do all we can to ensure that individual rights to privacy are maintained. There is great benefit to our society when we hold the rights of people over the folly of unreasonable searches and invasions of their private lives. After all, this is why we have the Fourth Amendment.

Do you agree with the Leon opinion? Why or why not?

Reference

Daly, J. (1984). Cost benefit analysis in search and seizure rulings. ABA Journal, 70(11), 110-115.