About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

62 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 1173 (1987)
The Search Warrant, the Magistrate, and Judicial Review

handle is hein.journals/nylr62 and id is 1189 raw text is: NEW YORK UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW VOLUME 62 DECEMBER 1987 NUMBER 6 THE SEARCH WARRANT, THE MAGISTRATE, AND JUDICIAL REVIEW ABRAHAM S. GOLDSTEIN* In United States v. Leon, the Supreme Court held that the exclusionary rule would not bar the admission of evidence when police obtained a search warrant for the evidence from a magistrate and relied on it in good faith. Looking closely at our current war- rant process, Professor Goldstein argues that Leon could offer a net gain for privacy and the fourth amendment, but only if magistrates responsibly inquire into issues of probable cause. Currently, however, magistrates do not fully perform this important role; pre-warrant proceedings are done quickly and often without any inquiry into facts underlying police affidavits. Professor Goldstein suggests that a process-oriented stan- dard for the post-warrant review of probable cause determinations would enhance the reliability and credibility of the warrant process. Under such a standard, if the issuing magistrate was law-trained and experienced, and conducted a serious review of the warrant application, the post-warrant reviewing court would treat his or her probable cause determination with deference. But if the magistrate was not law-trained, was inexperienced, or did not adequately probe the statements of the afflant, the reviewing court would fully review the finding of probable cause. Through such a process-ori- ented standard, Professor Goldstein concludes, Leon' good faith exception could en- courage magistrates to conduct more careful inquiries, and police to present fuller affldavits, thus ensuring greater fourth amendment protection. INTRODUCTION The debate about the proper scope of the exclusionary rule has oc- cupied center stage for so long that it is easy to forget that the rule is at best a limited remedy for the problem of illegal searches and seizures.' * Sterling Professor of Law, Yale University. I am grateful to Professors Miran Damaska, Steven Duke, Daniel Freed, Joseph Goldstein, and Kate Stith, all of Yale Law School, for their comments on earlier versions of this Article. The fourth amendment provides: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. 1173 Imaged with the Permission of N.Y.U. Law Review

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most