Detective Stanton gets a tip from John Bratton’s neighbor that Bratton is dealing drugs out of his house. Detective Stanton and
a newly hired officer, Stankowitcz (awaiting to go to the academy) conduct surveillance and try to make undercover buys, unsuccessfully. Detective Stanton has bigger fish to fry and moves on. However, just a week after graduating from the academy newly minted Officer Stankowitcz decides to bust Bratton, whatever the cost. Officer Stankowitcz, knocks on Bratton’s door, and tells him he knows he is a dealer. He demands to search the house, but Bratton refuses. As Bratton pushes the door closed, Officer Stankowitcz forces it open and steps in. He smells something awful. It was found out later, the City was getting complaints of foul odors in the neighborhood.
Stankowitcz begins searching the house and doesn’t find drugs but several decomposing bodies. It turns out Bratton is a serial killer. Two bodies are recovered from his basement. After being Mirandized properly, he leads officers to three other bodies, buried on several properties he used to rent. The police get warrants for the properties and retrieve the bodies. Additionally, Bratton’s ex-girlfriend tells police exactly where all the bodies were buried. However, the police mistakenly go to one property, which Bratton did not give them. They begin digging and find illegal guns, which turn out to belong to Sara Sutton, an illegal arms trader. Once this is discovered, officers obtain a warrant for Sutton’s house. They execute the warrant but forget to knock and announce. They find more illegal guns, and Sutton is charged.
At the preliminary hearing, Bratton’s attorney objects to the mentioning of the evidence at the hearing and moves to suppress all of it as obtained illegally, stemming from Officer Stankowitcz’s illegal search. Sutton’s attorney also makes objections, claiming the search and seizure of the guns was illegal. As the prosecutor put in charge of both of these high profile cases, what exceptions to the exclusionary rule will you argue makes the evidence admissible?
