The Supreme Court heard arguments yesterday on Virginia v. Moore yesterday. The case involves the application of the exclusionary rule which makes evidence seized in violation of the 4th Amendment inadmissible in court. But what in fact makes evidence inadmissible?
Moore was given a ticket for driving with a suspended license, but was also arrested and his hotel room was searched. The search produced 16 grams of crack cocaine, but the question is whether the nature of the search was legal according to the Constitution, or at least how the document is interpreted by the justices.
This is the question presented to the court: Does the Fourth Amendment require the suppression of evidence obtained incident to an arrest that is based upon probable cause, where the arrest violates a provision of state law?
Here's the docket. Here's commentary from Volokh Conspiracy and Crime and Consequences.
In class we may wish to discuss which is worse. Throwing out evidence when it is clear that someone has violated a statutory law or allowing the police to operate outside the bounds on constitutional law?
