Which case is associated with the Good Faith Exception?

Which case is associated with the Good Faith Exception?

• A. Hudson v Michigan
• B. Mapp v Ohio
• C. Katz v United States
• D. Terry v Ohio

Answer: (A)

The key idea here is the Good Faith Exception to the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule. This doctrine says that if police officers act with an objectively reasonable belief that their warrant is valid, evidence they collect under that warrant can still be admitted even if the warrant turns out to be flawed, so long as the error wasn’t the result of misbehavior or recklessness. The case most closely tied to establishing this principle is United States v. Leon, where the Supreme Court held that the exclusionary rule should not bar evidence obtained in good faith reliance on a warrant later found to be invalid. None of the listed cases creates or anchors the Good Faith Exception in the way Leon does. To connect the others: Mapp v. Ohio integrated the exclusionary rule to state prosecutions; Katz v. United States dealt with privacy expectations; Terry v. Ohio approved stop-and-frisk procedures; Hudson v. Michigan addressed knock-and-announce issues and suppression related to that rule. These do not establish the Good Faith Exception.

The key idea here is the Good Faith Exception to the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule. This doctrine says that if police officers act with an objectively reasonable belief that their warrant is valid, evidence they collect under that warrant can still be admitted even if the warrant turns out to be flawed, so long as the error wasn’t the result of misbehavior or recklessness.

The case most closely tied to establishing this principle is United States v. Leon, where the Supreme Court held that the exclusionary rule should not bar evidence obtained in good faith reliance on a warrant later found to be invalid. None of the listed cases creates or anchors the Good Faith Exception in the way Leon does.

To connect the others: Mapp v. Ohio integrated the exclusionary rule to state prosecutions; Katz v. United States dealt with privacy expectations; Terry v. Ohio approved stop-and-frisk procedures; Hudson v. Michigan addressed knock-and-announce issues and suppression related to that rule. These do not establish the Good Faith Exception.