Christopher L. Carpenter, Petitioner v. State of Florida, Respondent — Lawson, J., Dissenting

Summary

Justice Lawson dissents, arguing that the exclusionary rule should not apply when police rely in good‑faith on binding appellate precedent. He contends that Davis v. United States requires suppression only when deterrence outweighs societal costs, and that the officers’ reliance on Florida appellate authority was objectively reasonable. Accordingly, he would hold the cell‑phone evidence admissible.