 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Biggerstaff12/18/2001
titution cannot be used in a criminal proceeding against the victim of the illegal search and seizure. City of Omaha v. Savard-Henson, supra.
The primary purpose of the exclusionary rule is to deter future conduct on the part of law enforcement officials. Id. See, e.g., United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 104 S. Ct. 3405, 82 L. Ed. 2d 677 (1984).
Furthermore, "' s with any remedial device, the application of the rule has been restricted to those areas where its remedial objectives are thought most efficaciously served.'" City of Omaha v. Savard-Henson, 9 Neb. App. at 569, 615 N.W.2d at 504, quotingUnited States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 94 S. Ct. 613, 38 L. Ed. 2d 561 (1974).
The exclusionary rule has been applied where a carrier enforcement officer exceeded his authority and arrested a motorist in a passenger vehicle. State v. Langan, 6 Neb. App. 739, 577 N.W.2d 752 (1998). Further, inState v. Cuny, 257 Neb. 168, 595 N.W.2d 899 (1999) (pursuit across state lines), State v. Masat, 239 Neb. 849, 479 N.W.2d 131 (1992) (pursuit outside city and county jurisdiction), and State v. Tingle, 239 Neb. 558, 477 N.W.2d 544 (1991) (pursuit outside city jurisdiction), the Nebraska Supreme Court addressed the arrest authority of officers through the consideration of motions to suppress and applied the exclusionary rule to evidence obtained by an arresting officer who lacked authority, either to stop and detain or to arrest.
In the instant case, the issue was whether or not the exclusionary rule applied to Lozo's actions. I conclude, as did the district court, that the application of the exclusionary rule was appropriate in this case.
CONCLUSION
I therefore affirm the order of the district court in all respects.
Affirmed.
|