PETER F. IOCONA - ATTORNEY AT LAW
ORANGE COUNTY'S "BEST" DUI LAWYERS

CALL NOW: 949-305-0343 - FREE CONSULTATION - PAYMENT PLANS

THE "GOOD FAITH" EXCUSE EXCEPTION


CONTACT US TODAY


ATTORNEY BIOGRAPHIES


 
CLIENT REVIEWS &
PEER-REVIEW RATINGS



FOLLOW OUR DUI BLOGS


GOOGLE BLOGGER

OC DUI Lawyer Blog


GOOGLE BUSINESS PAGES


PETER F. IOCONA
ATTORNEY AT LAW

22982 LA CADENA DR #239
LAGUNA HILLS, CA. 92653




THE SOCAL LAW NETWORK

23152 VERDUGO DR #201
LAGUNA HILLS, CA. 92653

 



SHARE AND FOLLOW US ON SOCIAL MEDIA:

  


  



ALAN CASTILLO AND PETER F.  IOCONA BOTH SELECTED AS ONE OF ORANGE COUNTY'S TOP-RATED DEFENSE ATTORNEYS

Top-Rated OC DUI Attorney


PETER F. IOCONA: RATED BY "SUPER LAWYERS" 2015-2016


Super Lawyer Rated - Peter F. Iocona


PETER F. IOCONA SELECTED AS ONE OF THE "TOP 100 TRIAL LAWYERS" BY THE NATIONAL TRIAL LAWYERS ASSOCIATION


Top 100 Trial Lawyers - Peter F. Iocona



PETER F. IOCONA SELECTED AS ONE OF THE TOP CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEYS





PETER F. IOCONA SELECTED AS ONE OF THE NATION'S TOP ONE PERCENT ATTORNEYS BY N.A.D.C. 


Peter F. Iocona - Top One Percent Rated Attorney


PETER F. IOCONA SELECTED AS A MEMBER OF THE NATIONAL ADVOCACY OF DUI DEFENSE


Nationally Ranked Superior DUI Attorney


FEATURED IN THE "TOP 100" MAGAZINE AS ONE OF THE NATION'S TOP 100 LAW FIRMS



 "MEMBER" OF THE CALIFORNIA DUI LAWYERS ASSOCIATION


DUI Defense Lawyer - California DUI Lawyers Association


"MEMBER" OF THE NATIONAL COLLEGE FOR DUI DEFENSE


DUI Lawyer - National College for DUI Defense


"MEMBER" OF THE DUI DEFENSE LAWYERS ASSOCIATION (DUIDLA)


DUI Defense Lawyer - DUIDLA Member

  
ALAN CASTILLO SELECTED AS 
ONE OF THE "TOP 100 TRIAL LAWYERS" BY THE NATIONAL TRIAL LAWYERS ASSOCIATION



Top 100 Trial Lawyers - Alan Castillo


ALAN CASTILLO SELECTED AS 
ONE OF THE NATION'S TOP ONE PERCENT ATTORNEYS BY N.A.D.C. 


Alan Castillo - Top One Percent Rated Attorney



FORMER CONTRIBUTING EDITORS TO "CALIFORNIA DRUNK DRIVING LAW "
(2003-2016)


California Drunk Driving Law - Contributing Editors (2003-2016)



LAWYER LEGION COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT AWARD 


Lawyer Legion - Top Attorney



"LEAD COUNSEL" RATED DEFENSE ATTORNEYS


Lead Counsel Rated Orange County DUI Attorneys



 LAWYER.COM VERIFIED DEFENSE ATTORNEYS





 BETTER BUSINESS BUREAU RATED "A+"


BBB Top Rating - Top-Rated DUI Attorneys



EVERY ATTORNEY IS RATED "10/10" OR "SUPERB" BY AVVO ATTORNEY RATING SERVICE


Peter F. Iocona - Top-Rated Orange County DUI Lawyer

PETER F. IOCONA RATED "SUPERB" "10/10" BY AVVO



Peter F. Iocona - Best Orange County DUI Lawyer

PETER F. IOCONA RECEIVED "CLIENT'S CHOICE AWARD" 
FROM AVVO RATING SERVICE


Peter F. Iocona - Top Orange County DUI Attorney

 PETER F. IOCONA AWARDED 
"TOP CONTRIBUTOR" BY AVVO





ALAN CASTILLO RATED "SUPERB" BY AVVO





 
ALAN CASTILLO RECEIVED "CLIENTS' CHOICE AWARD" 
FROM AVVO RATING SERVICE





 MARLO CORDERO RATED
"SUPERB" BY AVVO


CALL NOW FOR A FREE DUI CONSULTATION:


Click to call

ON-CALL 24 HOURS A DAY 7 DAYS A WEEK

SHARE AND FOLLOW US ON SOCIAL MEDIA:


  


  


THE "GOOD FAITH" EXCUSE EXCEPTION

RATED BY SUPER LAWYERS, ORANGE COUNTY'S TOP-RATED DUI DEFENSE ATTORNEYS

Peter F. Iocona - Top 100 Trial LawyersPeter F. Iocona - Super Lawyers Rated Orange County DUI Lawyer  Peter F. Iocona - Top-Rated DUI Criminal Defense Attorney
 Peter F. Iocona - Top-Rated Orange County DUI Defense Attorney

THE GOOD FAITH EXCEPTION TO AN UNLAWFUL STOP & DETENTION

The exclusionary rule announced in Weeks v. United States 232 U.S. 383 (1914), and held applicable to the states in Mapp v. Ohio (1961) 367 U.S. 643, is designed to give weight to the Fourth Amendment by suppressing evidence obtained by law enforcement in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

An officer’s “good faith” is sometimes cited as a justification for not invoking the rule, on the basis that there is no deterrent value in such situations. See United States v. Leon (1984) 468 U.S. 897. The Leon exception was initially limited to law enforcement’s “good faith” reliance on probable cause decisions made by judicial officers. See In Re Arthur J. (1987) 193 Cal.App.3d 781; People v. White (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 636, 643-44 (no good faith exception for warrantless stops); and People v. Hernandez (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th Supp. 1 (no good faith exception for mistake of law in a warrantless detention). However, in the decades following Leon, the rule has been under constant attack and the “good faith” exception has been extended to other situations.

Most recently, Heien v. North Carolina (2014) ___U.S. ___, 134 S.Ct. 1872, held that reasonable suspicion for a detention may rest on an objectively reasonable, though mistaken, understanding of what a law prohibits.  Defendant was purportedly stopped because one of the two brake lights on his car was not working (we say “purportedly” because the stop for a mere “fix-it ticket” included questioning of both the driver and passenger about their destination, a claim of nervousness, and ultimately a claim of consensual search of the vehicle that resulted in a finding of drugs).  Although the North Carolina statute only requires a single stop lamp for automobiles, the Supreme Court held the officer’s mistaken understanding of the law was reasonable and the enforcement stop therefore valid. [The Court did not even get to whether an “objective good-faith” exception to the exclusionary rule applied---it simply held that the detention did not constitute a violation of the Fourth Amendment because it was reasonable.].

The Heien Court could have simply concluded that the officer was not mistaken about the law, and even intimated as much when it stated “if [the officer mistakenly interpreted the statute].” [emphasis added]. Although N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 20-129(g) only requires a vehicle to have “a stop lamp” [singular], a separate subsection of the statute mandates that “all originally equipped rear lamps” be functional. N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 20-129(d). 

Kagan, J., (joined by Ginsburg, J.) noted in her concurring opinion that an officer’s reliance on incorrect training or memorandums from a police department can not be the basis for a finding of objective reasonableness because subjective understandings of the law are irrelevant.  The majority agreed that the officer’s subjective belief about the subject statute was not at issue, citing Whren v. United States (1996), 517 U. S. 806, 813.

Sotomayer, J., offered the following prediction in her lone dissent:  “I fear the Court’s unwillingness to sketch a fuller view of what makes a mistake of law reasonable only presages the likely difficulty that courts will have applying the Court’s decision in this case.”  

Davis v. United States (2011) 564 U.S. ___ 131 S.Ct. 2419, declined to invoke the exclusionary rule based on law enforcement’s “objectively reasonable good faith belief” that their conduct was lawful. Police found contraband in a vehicle search after the occupants had been arrested and placed in a patrol car. At the time, such searches were commonly thought to be legal under New York v. Belton (1981) 453 U.S. 454, and the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals had held in U.S. v. Gonzales (1996) 71 F.3d 819, at 825, that Belton created a bright line rule authorizing such searches.

Subsequently, Arizona v. Gant (2009) 556 U.S. ___ 129 S.Ct. 1710, clarified that Belton does not authorize such searches, and though the Davis case was still pending (making Gant the controlling authority), the exclusionary rule was held inapplicable and the evidence was ruled admissible. It is important to note, however, that the binding appellate precedent supporting the “objective good faith” exception in Davis is limited by the court’s language to decisions by it, federal circuit Court of Appeals, and state courts of last resort.

Earlier, Illinois v. Krull, 480 U.S. 340 (1987) extended the exception to searches conducted in good faith reliance on subsequently invalidated statutes. Arizona v. Evans, 514 U.S. 1 (1995) applied it where police reasonably relied upon erroneous information concerning an arrest warrant in a database maintained by judicial employees. Herring v. United States (2009) 555 U.S. 135, discussed a “cost-benefit” analysis wherein the 5-4 majority proclaimed that the exclusionary rule is not an individual right and is only triggered where it results in appreciable deterrence [citing Leon]:

To trigger the exclusionary rule, police conduct must be sufficiently deliberate that exclusion can meaningfully deter it, and sufficiently culpable that such deterrence is worth the price paid by the justice system. As laid out in our cases, the exclusionary rule serves to deter deliberate, reckless, or grossly negligent conduct, or in some circumstances recurring or systematic negligence. Id.

People v. Pearl (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1280, is a post-Herring decision that reaffirmed that the prosecution bears the burden of proving any good faith exception. This rule may not apply where “objective good faith” reliance on binding appellate precedent is found to have existed at the time of the Fourth Amendment violation, but it otherwise remains controlling law. Furthermore, a prosecutor’s failure to raise and prove the “good faith” exception at the trial court level should only be excused on appeal where the new law is published subsequent to the court’s ruling. In Davis, the Arizona v. Gant decision was not issued until after the District Court’s hearing and decision, so the prosecutor had no reason to raise the “good faith” exception at that juncture.

Remember, “Good faith is not a magic lamp for police officers to rub whenever they find themselves in trouble.” People v. Hulland (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1646, 1656. The good faith must be grounded in honesty.


DIRECTIONS TO PETER F. IOCONA - ATTORNEY AT LAW IN LAGUNA HILLS















Website Builder