Third Circuit gives narrow reading to exclusionary rule

The Volokh Conspiracy ^ | October 2, 2014 | Orin Kerr

[right-wing agnostic]

I’ve blogged a few times about the Third Circuit’s litigation in United States v. Katzin, a case on the Fourth Amendment implications of installing a GPS device. Initially, a panel of the court held that installing a GPS device on a car requires a warrant and that the exclusionary rule applied because there was no binding precedent allowing the government to install the device. Next, DOJ moved for en banc rehearing of just the exclusionary rule holding, which the Third Circuit granted. That brings us to the new development: On Wednesday, the en banc Third Circuit ruled that the exclusionary rule does not apply.

Here are three thoughts on the new case.

1) The Third Circuit focuses on the overall culpability of the officer who conducted the search, relying on the broad reading of Davis and Herring. The key passage seems to be this:

[John O]

Gicve us more details.

Was someone installing a gps on his car? or was it a rental sort of thing.

It seems that the third circuit just allowed warrantless searches of this guy’s car. Is that correct?