By: Jacob Bruner
A commonly misunderstood aspect of criminal law is ensuring Constitutional protections remain intact for all citizens, with heightened focus importance on those concerning police conduct and law enforcement investigations.
This is especially true with regards to the Fourth Amendment and the protections that it provides citizens and inhabitants from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government through its agents.[1] The Fourth Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights by the original drafters of the United States Constitution to protect the inhabitants of the newly formed state from an omnipotent government. The British Monarchy that had legal authority, with minimal restrictions, to investigate its own citizens and those under its jurisdiction, especially the British colonies, whenever it pleased. Fourth Amendment jurisprudence has developed throughout the years as society has developed. However, this development comes with both positives and negatives. The most recent attack on Fourth Amendment protection occurred during a case in Minnesota through an improper expansion of the “good faith exception” and the decline of the “exclusionary rule.” One that other states and their court systems may rely on improperly in the fight against crime.
The exclusionary rule allows for evidence that was seized improperly to be excluded from being introduced as evidence in the court of law.[2] This was most famously demonstrated in Mapp v. Ohio.[3] The good faith exception in American jurisprudence allows for the exclusionary rule to be bypassed when officers are making good faith efforts when conducting arrests, searches, and seizures.[4] The Supreme Court has increasingly applied the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule in a variety of cases at the federal level, most famously in Arizona v. Evans, which compiled the findings of two other Supreme Court cases to create a brightline rule.[5]The rule being, “On the basis of three factors, we determined that there was no sound reason to apply the exclusionary rule as a means of deterring misconduct on the part of judicial officers who are responsible for issuing warrants.[6] This leaves state legislatures, their statutes, and state court decisions within state court systems as the last bastion of true Fourth Amendment protections.
The case threatening the exclusionary rule comes from Minnesota, State v. Malecha.[7] Minnesota courts have traditionally applied a much narrower version of the good-faith exception and therefore, utilizing a broader version of the exclusionary rule that reinforces both state, in this case, and federal Constitutional protections.[8] The Court of Appeals of Minnesota ruled against protecting Fourth Amendment protections.[9]
The defendant in State v. Malecha (2021), was arrested on a bench warrant and during the search incident to arrest the police conducting the search incident to arrest discovered methamphetamine.[10] The police were initially called to conduct a welfare check on a woman who others claimed was behaving suspiciously and when they arrived they realized that the woman had such warrant out for her.[11] The defendant was subsequently charged with four felony counts of being in possession of a controlled substance.[12] The trial court presiding over the case suppressed the evidence because the judge found that the bench warrant had actually been quashed by another court.[13] The warrant was still showing active on the recordkeeping systems because state court administrators had failed to inform the proper officials that the warrant had been quashed.[14] The state appealed and the Court of Appeals of Minnesota sided with the state’s argument that the good faith exception should apply since it was both a system and clerical error; therefore, the officers were acting in good faith.[15]
The viewpoint of the court of appeals is too broad for the current technology, manpower, and policing power that every state has at its disposal. To hold individuals criminally responsible for items that were seized unconstitutionally because of a clerical or system error is a failure of the state to protect its inhabitants from exactly what the original drafters of the U.S. Constitution feared. As one can imagine this is a likely scenario for communities across the country who are heavily policed and therefore have warrants or other documents used by correctional systems that are not being processed properly. Or those suffering from addiction and/or homelessness who may often have frequent interactions with law enforcement officers. All of which can lead to a violation of both Constitutional rights and human rights.
This is an important issue because of what it means to those who find themselves at the bottom of American society. The states that claim to be more liberal in their laws and bureaucracy, such as Minnesota, need to walk the walk and not simply talk the talk. Members of the BIPOC community, underserved persons, immigrants, low-income groups, and others on the margin face a threat of not having access to proper legal representation to understand what the exclusionary rule and the good faith exception means to their case. Persons caught in the middle of being charged with an alleged crime and put in jail will be in a scary situation and may be unaware of their rights. They may plead guilty to crimes that they did not commit and/or could not be charged with due to protections that they are not aware of. It is up to the states to protect their inhabitants by increasing funding for public defenders and making sure that the exclusionary rule has strong support in their court system and/or state statutes.
[1] Amendment IV, U.S. Constitution
[2] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/exclusionary_rule (last visited Jan. 17, 2024).
[3] Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961)
[4] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/good_faith_exception_to_exclusionary_rule (last visited Jan. 17, 2024)
[5] Arizona v. Evans, 514 U.S. 1 (1995)
[6] Id at 11.
[7] State v. Malecha, Not Reported in N.W. Rptr. 2023 WL 2359622 (Minn.App., 2023)
[8] https://www.aclu.org/cases/state-v-malecha Dec. 7, 2023 (last visited Jan. 18, 2024).
[9] Id.
[10] Id.
[11] State v. Malecha, Not Reported in N.W. Rptr. 2023 WL 2359622 (Minn.App., 2023).
[12] Id.
[13] Supra ACLU Malecha
[14] Supra ACLU Malecha
[15] State v. Malecha, 2023 WL 2359622 (Minn. App., 2023).
