Murray v. United States: The Court Takes Another Swipe at the Warrant Requirement

The protection afforded by the warrant requirement of the fourth amendment and the use of the exclusionary rule as a remedy for unlawful searches and seizures have been significantly reduced by the Supreme Court's recent decision in Murray v. United States. Although somewhat overlooked because of a flurry of decisions during the final weeks of its term involving other important issues such as the constitutionality of the independent counsel, the ability of states to execute minors, and the right to confront victims in child sex-abuse cases, the Court's opinion in Murray is a most significant one.Stated most succinctly, Murray holds that when the police acting with probable cause but in violation of the warrant requirement discover evidence of a crime, that evidence will be admissible if the police later obtain a search warrant without using the information gained during the unlawful search. Essentially, the Court's approach is to treat the first unlawful entry and search as if it never happened, so that the police are placed in a position no worse off than if that search had not been conducted. The purpose of this article is to show how this approach strikes directly at the purpose behind the warrant requirement and runs precisely counter to the avowed goal of the exclusionary rule, which is the deterrence of illegal police activity.