Abstract
When the Court decided Leon, and even Sheppard, Krull, and Evans, it offered several interlocking rationales to support those decisions. Lower courts faced with the task of applying the good faith exception to other situations might be well-served by testing the possible results under the several models for interpreting Leon that are fairly drawn from the Court's opinions. To the extent that a particular result is consistent with all or most of those models, it is very likely the correct result. To the extent that the several models point to different conclusions, courts might consider identifying the model or models perceived to be at the heart of Leon and its progeny. The Court, on the other hand, now has the benefit of viewing nearly a quarter century of courts grappling wjth the good faith exception in various contexts. In some of those contexts, models suggested by the Court's opinions produce inconsistent results when applied to certain situations. Certainly the Court is not done with the good faith exception. One would hope that the next such case that comes before the Court will provide the Court with an opportunity to clarify or prioritize the various models in order to guide courts and litigants in future cases.
Recommended Citation
Melilli, Kenneth J.
(2008)
"What Nearly a Quarter Century of Experience Has Taught Us About Leon and "Good Faith","
Utah Law Review: Vol. 2008:
No.
2, Article 4.
Available at:
https://dc.law.utah.edu/ulr/vol2008/iss2/4