The United States Supreme Court has remanded this case to us. Ryan Austin Collins made an ineffective attempt to silence evidence in the Court of appeals (Mudde et al.,2019). Collins, accused of receiving stolen items, filed an appeal with the Court of Appeals, arguing that the district court should have rejected evidence collected by police officers during a police investigation of a motorcycle left on a private driveway. The judgment was upheld by the Court of Appeals, which found that the search was lawful due to urgent considerations. We upheld the warrantless search on additional appeal to us because the vehicle exemption authorized it.
“This case asks the problem if the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment authorizes a law enforcement officer, unsolicited and without permission, to access the property line of a residence in investigating a car parked therein,” the United States Supreme Court held on certiorari review. “No, it doesn’t.” The Supreme Court’s decision was limited to the interaction between the automobile exception and the curtilage concept. “We leave for resolution on remand whether Officer Rhodes’ unlawful trespass on Collins’ site boundary might be justifiable on a different scale, such as the exception of the exigent situations to the warrant requirement,” the Court stated. The Commonwealth contends on a review that two independent grounds supported the trial court’s decision to block Collins’ request to suppress: the exception of the urgent consideration to the judicially and the fair and reasonable exception to the hearsay rule.
The case’s evidentiary background has already been covered in detail in prior decisions so that we won’t go over it again here. Since no exigent circumstances emerged, we believe the exclusionary rule does not apply in this case because reasonably well-trained police would not have recognized that the investigation of the motorcycle, which was sited several meters across the curtilage demarcation line of a private garage, was unconstitutional at the moment of the pursuit.
The United States Supreme Court has denied its own previous “expansive dicta” that “indicated that the regulation was an ego mandate embedded in the Fourth Amendment itself,” acknowledging the lack of any factual basis for the exclusionary rule (Bellin et al.,2020). That isn’t the case. Conversely, the United States Supreme Court has “acknowledged the exclusionary rule for what it surely is a ‘lawfully devised solution’ of the Court’s devising,” rather than “a human reassertion.” The Commonwealth contends, and the plurality accepts, that we must uphold since Officer Rhodes might have legitimately depended on This, what they claim was legal law until the Supreme Court’s decision in Collins III. 7 The judgment also considers the United States as a substitute example. Still, neither of these aces is precedential since they are distinctive. (collecting cases and noting that, before Davis, high Court that had acknowledged an exception had retained it to be obtainable only where the officers rely on “clear and quite well justification,” that “instance on a given stage must be extremely clear,” and that nothing in Davis subverted these restrictions)
I can’t entirely agree with the united states supreme court because it recognizes that a court cannot expect law enforcement officers to investigate a violent act to evaluate the scenarios of pursuit with the detailed view of a judge or criminologist still, where there is uncertainty (particularly considering a lookup of a residence or its prescriptive easement). The circumstances are not so urgent that a warrant cannot be collected before the proof is lost, eliminated, or destructed; they must be on the side of acquiring one.
Mudde, C., & Kaltwasser, C. R. (2019). Exclusionary vs. inclusionary populism: Comparing contemporary Europe and Latin America. Government and opposition, 48(2), 147-174.
Bellin, J. (2020). Expanding the Reach of Progressive Prosecution. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (1973-), 110(4), 707-717.