United States v. Julius

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that Supreme Court’s decision in Herring imposed new requirement that courts make case-specific determination “whether the deterrent effect of applying the exclusionary rule outweighs the cost of the rule’s application”
• remanding because “we are not confident the district court would reach the same conclusion that suppression is proper in light of Herring”
• assuming warrantless search was unconstitutional and remanding for District Court to “perform the cost/benefit analysis required by Herring” and to consider “whether the degree of police culpability in this case rose beyond mere . . . negligence” before ordering suppression

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).