October Term 2010 · Docket 09-11328
Should courts suppress evidence when police follow binding circuit precedent?
The dispute centers on whether the exclusionary rule applies when officers rely on a specific circuit court decision.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Mr. Kerr argued retroactivity and good faith point in opposite directions.
Mr. Dreeben argued the exclusionary rule must shape police conduct.
Chief Justice Roberts questioned the deterrence rationale for this specific case.
Justice Scalia stated the altered rule applies to the client's conduct.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 13-29 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 13-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 33-3 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 33-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 23-43 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 23-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 23-51 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 23-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-31 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 33-49 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 33-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 19-27 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 19-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 49-7 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 49-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 17-31 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 17-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 45-9 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 45-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 27-37 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 27-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 41-43 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 41-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 9-27 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 9-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 23-41 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 23-41
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
This case tests the scope of the exclusionary rule. It asks if evidence must be suppressed when police follow a binding circuit precedent that later proves wrong.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 23-51 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 23-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-31 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-31
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on March 21, 2011.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
What each side wants
the side that brought the case wants the evidence suppressed to enforce the new rule.
Government wants the evidence admitted to deter only bad police conduct.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 23-51 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 23-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-31 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-31
What each side says
the side that brought the case argues retroactivity requires applying the new rule to this case.
Government argues the good faith exception bars suppression here.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 23-51 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 23-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-31 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-31
What the justices asked
Chief Justice Roberts asked why the Court should deter correct police behavior.
Justice Ginsburg asked if the Eleventh Circuit followed retroactivity precedent correctly.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 13-29 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 13-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 33-3 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 33-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 23-43 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 23-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 33-49 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 33-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 19-27 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 19-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 49-7 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 49-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 17-31 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 17-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 45-9 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 45-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 27-37 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 27-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 41-43 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 41-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 9-27 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 9-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 23-41 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 23-41
Why it matters
This case defines when courts must exclude evidence. It balances truth-seeking against deterring police misconduct. It clarifies the good faith exception's role in criminal trials.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 23-51 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 23-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-31 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-31
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 13-29 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 13-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 33-3 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 33-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 23-43 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 23-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 33-49 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 33-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 19-27 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 19-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 49-7 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 49-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 17-31 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 17-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 45-9 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 45-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 27-37 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 27-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 41-43 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 41-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 9-27 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 9-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 23-41 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 23-41
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 23-51 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 23-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-31 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 23-51 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 23-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-31 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-31
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.