Court Opinion

ID: 9476543
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 05:58:33.474499+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:45:22.613283
License: Public Domain

ALVIN B. RUBIN, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
As in Illinois v. Krull,1 our opinion fails to provide an “effective remedy ... in the very case in which the [search] at issue [is] held unconstitutional.” That result, however, is ordained by the Supreme Court opinions in both Krull and United States v. Leon.2 The majority opinion in both cases considered and rejected the argument that a defendant who has successfully challenged the constitutionality of state action should receive the benefit of suppression of the evidence unconstitutionally seized.3 Concurring in the remainder of the opinion, I therefore concur also in Part V although I would, if not bound by Supreme Court *873precedent, reach a contrary decision as to the suppression of the evidence in this case.

. — U.S. -, 107 S.Ct. 1160, 1177, 94 L.Ed.2d 364 (1987) (O’Connor, Jr., dissenting).

. 468 U.S. 897, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984).

.Krull, 107 S.Ct. at 1169 n. 11; Leon, 468 U.S. at 924 & n. 25, 104 S.Ct. at 3421 & n. 25.