The court ruled that at the time, when the State Police opened the file, they had no reason to believe that a warrant was required. While the search was later ruled unconstitutional, no court had ruled it was unconstitutional *at the time of the search*. One of the cornerstones of American jurisprudence is that you cannot go back in time and overrule decisions based on contemporary jurisprudence.
From the opinion: 'the exception can also apply where officers “committed a
constitutional violation” by acting without a warrant under circumstances
that “they did not reasonably know, at the time, [were] unconstitutional.”'
If you're interested, the discussion of a good faith exemption (and why fruit of the poison tree doesn't apply here) begins at page 40 of the doc.
The court ruled that at the time, when the State Police opened the file, they had no reason to believe that a warrant was required. While the search was later ruled unconstitutional, no court had ruled it was unconstitutional *at the time of the search*. One of the cornerstones of American jurisprudence is that you cannot go back in time and overrule decisions based on contemporary jurisprudence.
From the opinion: 'the exception can also apply where officers “committed a constitutional violation” by acting without a warrant under circumstances that “they did not reasonably know, at the time, [were] unconstitutional.”'
If you're interested, the discussion of a good faith exemption (and why fruit of the poison tree doesn't apply here) begins at page 40 of the doc.