NCJ Number
116226
Journal
Advocate Volume: 2 Issue: 2 Dated: (February 1989) Pages: 21-22
Date Published
1989
Length
2 pages
Annotation
The present nature of the warrant process in Kentucky should cause the State Supreme Court to reject the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule in Kentucky; and if the Court decides to experiment with the good faith exception, the warrant process should be changed.
Abstract
In 'The Search Warrant, the Magistrate, and Judicial Review' (1987), Goldstein reviews the results of a recent study on the warrant process by the National Center for State Courts. This study concluded that magistrates are not doing the kind of job required under United States v. Leon, which established the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule in the Federal system. Only if the magistrate does a competent job of scrutinizing affidavits and issuing warrants can privacy rights be protected in the context of the good faith exception. If the Kentucky Supreme Court adopts the good faith exception, warrant procedures must be changed to ensure that magistrates are careful in making the probable-cause determination and aggressive in obtaining and examining relevant facts. Kentucky needs a new rule of criminal procedure requiring all ex parte warrant proceedings to be on the record. Unless such a requirement is established, a good faith exception should not be seriously considered. If the courts are to give deference to magistrates, that deference must be reviewable. This article briefly describes recent State court cases pertinent to search and seizure law.