may-identity-related-evidence-be-suppressed-under-exclusionary-rule

QUESTION PRESENTED The Eleventh Circuit has held that identity-related evidence is not suppressible in a criminal prosecution. However, this precedent relies heavily on—and expressly ties its reasoning to—‘“the cost-benefit balancing test” used by this Court in Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586 (2006). When compared with the authoritative decisions from other appellate courts, a minority of circuits disagree with this conclusion, and an overwhelming majority disagree with this rationale. In the opinion below, the Eleventh Circuit assumed that Mr. Hernandez-Pacheco was subject to an unconstitutional vehicle stop, but affirmed the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress based on this precedent. The question presented is: may identity-related evidence obtained as the direct result of an illegal search or seizure be suppressed under the exclusionary rule? ii