STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
DARWYN RUSHING, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The State of Florida appealed a trial court's order suppressing evidence seized from Darwyn Rushing's home pursuant to a search warrant. The appellate court reversed, holding that although the supporting affidavit may not have established probable cause, the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule applied because any police error did not rise to the level of deliberate, reckless, or grossly negligent conduct.
The good faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies because the error, if any, in obtaining the search warrant does not rise to the level of deliberate, reckless, or grossly negligent conduct necessary to trigger the exclusionary rule. Evidence should not have been suppressed.
[1] The good faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies when police conduct is not sufficiently deliberate, reckless, or grossly negligent to warrant suppression of evi…
[2] The exclusionary rule's application depends on whether its deterrent effect outweighs the cost of excluding evidence.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The exclusionary rule is not an individual right, but rather it is to be applied only where its effect as a deterrent outweighs the substantial cost of letting a guilty party go free.”
Establishes the framework for when the exclusionary rule applies, requiring a balancing test rather than automatic application.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePolice obtained and executed a search warrant for Rushing's home based on an affidavit. The trial court suppressed the evidence seized, finding that t…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Deterrent Effect Of Exclusionary Rule cases and more on FLexlaw
The State of Florida appeals an order of the trial court granting the motion of the appellee, Darwyn Rushing, to suppress evidence that was seized from his home pursuant to a search warrant. The trial court held that the supporting affidavit did not establish probable cause, that the search was thus unreasonable, and that the good faith exception did not apply. While the question of whether there was probable cause to underpin the search is a close question, we reverse because the good faith exception is applicable and the evidence seized should not have been suppressed.
The good faith exception to the exclusionary rule has been the subject of much judicial labor. We have learned from the United States Supreme Court that the fact that a search may have been unreasonable does not necessarily mean that the exclusionary rule applies. See Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983). The exclusionary rule is not an individual right, but rather it is to be applied only where its effect as a deterrent outweighs the substantial cost of letting a guilty party go free. See United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 908-09, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984). In a relatively recent pronouncement on the subject the United States Supreme Court has said:
To trigger the exclusionary rule, police conduct must be sufficiently deliberate that exclusion can meaningfully deter it, and sufficiently culpable that such deterrence is worth the price paid by the justice system. As laid out in our cases, the exclusionary rule serves to deter *747deliberate, reckless, or grossly negligent conduct, or in some circumstances recurring or systemic negligence. The error in this case does not rise to that level.
Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135, 129 S.Ct. 695, 702, 172 L.Ed.2d 496 (2009).
As in Herring, the error, if any, in the present case simply does not measure up to conduct that could be called deliberate, reckless or grossly negligent, and we, therefore, conclude that the good faith exception applies. See also State v. Watt, 946 So.2d 108 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007), review denied, 51 So.3d 1156 (Fla.2010). Accordingly, we reverse the order granting suppression and remand for further action consistent with this opinion.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
PALMER and JACOBUS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Illinois v. Gates et ux., 462 U.S. 213 (U.S. 1983)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (U.S. 1984)
- Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135 (U.S. 2009)
- State v. Watt, 946 So. 2d 108 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)