Colorado's Good-faith Exception to the Exclusionary Rule
| Publication year | 1982 |
| Pages | 410 |
| Citation | Vol. 11 No. 2 Pg. 410 |
1982, February, Pg. 410. Colorado's Good-Faith Exception to the Exclusionary Rule
For here the cost of applying the [exclusionary] rule is one paid in coin minted from the very core of our fact-finding process, the cost of holding trials at which the truth is deliberately and knowingly suppressed and witnesses, in contravention of their oath, are forbidden to tell the whole truth and are censured if they do. This is a high price, indeed, and one that ought never be paid where, in reason, no deterrence is called for and none can in fact be had.(fn1)
The "exclusionary rule" ("rule") and its effect on the criminal justice system is the subject of continuing controversy. Commentators who question the rule contend that it allows the guilty to go free because valid, conclusive and relevant evidence has been suppressed.(fn2) Indeed, some assert that the rule breeds contempt for the criminal justice system.(fn3) Proponents of the rule assert that it is essential for protecting constitutional rights from state intrusion since it deters unlawful state action, thereby ensuring that the criminal justice system is not tainted by foul play.(fn4)
Although the exclusionary rule remains vibrant, there is a growing body of law supporting a good-faith exception to its application. This exception arises where police officers have obtained evidence in the reasonable belief that their actions were sanctioned by the Constitution, statutes or judicial precedent. Colorado has adopted the good-faith exception in C.R.S. § 16-3-308 (1981 Colo. Sess. Laws, ch. 188), which reads, in pertinent part, as follows:
(1) Evidence which is otherwise admissible in a criminal proceeding shall not be suppressed by the trial court if the court determines that the evidence was seized by a peace officer, as defined in C.R.S. 1973, 18-1-901(3)(1), as a result of good faith mistake or of a technical violation.
(2) As used in subsection (1) of this section:
(a) "Good faith mistake" means a reasonable judgmental error concerning the existence of facts which if true would be sufficient to constitute probable cause.
(b) "Technical violation" means a reasonable good faith reliance upon a statute which is later ruled unconstitutional, a warrant which is later invalidated due to a good faith mistake, or a court precedent which is later overruled.
(4) It is hereby declared to be the public policy of the State of Colorado that when evidence is sought to be excluded from the trier of fact in a criminal proceeding because of the conduct of a peace officer leading to its discovery, that it will be open to the proponent of the evidence to urge that the conduct in question was taken in a reasonable, good faith belief that it was proper and in such instances the evidence so discovered should not be kept from the trier of fact if otherwise admissible. This section is necessary to identify the characteristics of evidence which will be admissible in a court of law. This section does not address or attempt to prescribe court procedure.(fn5)
This statute voids the exclusionary rule when an agent of the state obtains evidence as a result of either a "good-faith mistake" or a "technical violation." This article focuses on the constitutional support of § 16-3-308.
The primary purpose of the exclusionary rule(fn6) is to deter unlawful police conduct:(fn7)
The deterrent purpose of the exclusionary rule necessarily assumes that the police have engaged in willful, or at the very least negligent, conduct which has deprived the defendant of some rights. By refusing to admit evidence gained as a result of such conduct, the courts hope to instill in those particular investigating officers, or their future counterparts, a greater degree of care towards the rights of an accused. Where the official action was pursued in complete good faith, however the deterrent rationale loses much of its force.(fn8)
The good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule is premised on the principle that a police officer will not be deterred from an illegal search if he does not know it is illegal. The Fifth Circuit stated in U.S. v. Williams:(fn9)
It makes no sense to speak of deterring police officers who acted in the good-faith belief that their conduct was legal by suppressing evidence derived from such actions unless we somehow wish to deter them from acting at all.(fn10)
A secondary, interrelated purpose of the rule is to uphold the integrity of the judiciary by ensuring that courts do not sanction unlawful and willful conduct on the part of authorities who are sworn to uphold the Constitution.(fn11) Thus, "[t]he efforts of the courts and...
To continue reading
Request your trial