The Good Faith Exception to the Exclusionary Rule
$19.95 Buy and instantly download this paper now
This paper analyzes the "good faith exception" to the exclusionary rule as addressed by Federal and Connecticut governments under the American system of dual constitutionalism. It examines the Leon and Marsala cases and focuses on how both courts presiding over similar cases, using similar laws and historical analysis ended up with contradicting rulings. This paper goes deeply into the rationale of both courts, the specific language that they used (from their individual constitutions), the historical analysis taken by both courts to determine the meaning of the language they were interpreting and the major criticism that followed the Supreme Court because of their ruling in Leon.
From the Paper:"As in Leon, State of Connecticut v. Michael Joseph Marsala, deals with an appeal that requests the court to address whether a good faith exception to the Exclusionary Rule exists under their State Constitution. Marsala was convicted of two counts of violating state dependency producing law, General Statutes Section 21a-278(b). The Appellate Court affirmed Marsala's conviction in State v. Marsala, 19 Conn. App. 478, 563 A.2d 730 (1989). At trial, Marsala filed a motion to suppress the evidence seized from both his person and his home and the court found in his favor with regards to the latter claim but upheld the evidence seized from his person. "
Sample of Sources Used:
- State of Connecticut v. Michael Joseph Marsala, 216 Conn. 150
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897
Cite this Term Paper:
The Good Faith Exception to the Exclusionary Rule (2007, January 07) Retrieved June 24, 2019, from https://www.academon.com/term-paper/the-good-faith-exception-to-the-exclusionary-rule-91460/
"The Good Faith Exception to the Exclusionary Rule" 07 January 2007. Web. 24 June. 2019. <https://www.academon.com/term-paper/the-good-faith-exception-to-the-exclusionary-rule-91460/>