Reference no: EM133599452

In the following example, assume that the only court opinion on point is United States v. Leon (see Appendix A).

Facts: Officer Jones submits to Judge Bean a request for a search warrant for the search of Steve's apartment. Officer Jones knows that there is not sufficient probable cause for issuance of the warrant, but he also knows that Judge Bean favors law enforcement and will most likely issue the warrant anyway. Judge Bean issues the warrant. Officer Jones gives the warrant to other officers and instructs them to execute it. He does not tell them that he knows it is defective because of the lack of probable cause for its issuance. The other officers execute the warrant in the good-faith belief that it is valid. The officers find drugs, and charge Steve with possession.

Steve moves for suppression of the evidence, claiming that the search was illegal and the evidence must be excluded under the exclusionary rule. What is the counterargument to the prosecution's position in each of the following situations?

Part A. The prosecution argues that because the officers executing the warrant were acting in the good-faith belief that the warrant was valid, United States v. Leon governs the case. The good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies, and therefore the evidence should not be suppressed.

Part B. Same facts except that Officer Jones delivers the warrant to members of the Citizens Protection Association, a private group of citizens trained by the police to assist in the performance of minor police functions. The group volunteers its services and is not employed by the police. They execute the warrant and make a citizen's arrest of Steve. The prosecution argues that United States v. Leon governs, and that case holds that the exclusionary rule is designed only to protect against police misconduct, not misconduct by private citizens.