Willie Gene Davis v. United States
In brief
The Court agreed with the Eleventh Circuit: evidence need not be kept out when officers’ reliance on binding appeals-court precedent was objectively reasonable.
- Where it stands
- Decided
Decided 7-2 · June 16, 2011 · Opinion by Justice Alito
- What it’s about
- Police searched Willie Gene Davis’s car after his arrest, relying on appeals-court precedent that the Supreme Court later ruled unconstitutional in another case; Davis argued that the gun evidence should be kept out.
- Who it affects
- Evidence is not kept out when officers’ reliance on a binding appeals-court rule was objectively reasonable.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
The Supreme Court ruled that evidence need not be excluded when officers reasonably rely on binding appeals-court precedent and agreed with the Eleventh Circuit’s ruling (affirmed).
Davis challenged the use of a gun found in his car after the police search.
The dispute followed the Supreme Court’s 2009 Arizona v. Gant ruling, which said a car search without a warrant violates the Constitution when police remove occupants and secure them in a squad car.
Question presented
Does the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule apply to a search that was authorized by precedent at the time of the search but is subsequently ruled unconstitutional?
What the Court decided
Holding
Searches conducted in objectively reasonable reliance on binding appellate precedent are not subject to the exclusionary rule. Pp. 6– 20. 598 F. 3d 1259, affirmed.
- Result
- Affirmed
The Court's reasoning
The Court applied its rule that evidence need not be kept out when officers’ reliance on binding appeals-court precedent was objectively reasonable.
The vote
- Joined the judgment
- Concurred in a separate opinion
- Dissented
- Wrote an opinion
- Concurring · 1agreed with the result, wrote separately
- Sotomayorwrote separately
- Dissenting · 2disagreed with the result
- Breyerwrote the dissent
- Ginsburg
From the opinions
“Because Gant represents a “shift” in the Court’s Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, ante , at 1, we must decide whether and how Gant’ s new rule applies here.”
What's next
The Eleventh Circuit’s ruling remains in place. Lower courts must apply the Court’s rule to searches where officers’ reliance on binding appeals-court precedent is objectively reasonable.
Documents
Opinions
Audio
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Impact Analysis
AI analysis generated: Opinion Summary
Show 5 moreShow fewer
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata
Audio Recording added: Oral Arguments - Davis
Opinion added: Davis
More questions
- Did the Court decide that the car search was lawful?
- No. It decided that evidence need not be kept out in these circumstances, which is different from ruling that the search complied with the Constitution.
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.