Davis v. United States: Retroactivity and the Good-Faith Exception to the Exclusionary Rule

Emily C. Barbour
Legislative Attorney

In Davis v. United States, the Supreme Court held that evidence seized in violation of the defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights is admissible at trial when the police seized the evidence in good-faith reliance on “binding appellate precedent.” The petitioner in that case, Willie Davis, was a passenger in a car that was stopped by police for a traffic violation. The police arrested the driver for driving while intoxicated and Davis for giving a false name. After handcuffing Davis and placing him in the back of a patrol car, the police searched the passenger compartment of the car in which Davis had been riding. The police found a revolver inside Davis’s jacket, and Davis was convicted of possessing a firearm as a convicted felon.

At the time of the search, the police were acting in conformity with controlling Eleventh Circuit precedent. However, after Davis was convicted and had filed an appeal, the Supreme Court ruled that this type of vehicle search incident to arrest was unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment. Nevertheless, when Davis’s appeal reached the Court, it held that even though the search was unconstitutional, the gun it produced was admissible under the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule.

The exclusionary rule bars evidence obtained in an unconstitutional search from being introduced at trial. The rule is a pragmatic doctrine intended to deter Fourth Amendment violations. It traditionally applies when (1) no exception, such as the good-faith exception, bars its operability; (2) exclusion will achieve “appreciable deterrence” of Fourth Amendment violations; and (3) the benefits of evidentiary suppression outweigh its burdens on the justice system.

In 2009, the Supreme Court broadened the good-faith exception when it announced in Herring v. United States that unconstitutionally obtained evidence is admissible at trial unless the evidence was the product of “deliberate” and “culpable” police misconduct. Davis was the first Supreme Court case to apply the Herring standard. The case furthers the impression that police culpability is now the sole relevant factor in determining whether the exclusionary rule applies. The Court rejected Davis’s contentions that other relevant factors include whether the exclusionary rule’s application would facilitate the development of Fourth Amendment law and whether a recently announced Fourth and Fifth Amendment rule applies retroactively. Two Justices dissented from the Court’s opinion. One Justice concurred in the judgment but rejected the Court’s view that police culpability is the dispositive factor in an assessment of whether the exclusionary rule applies.

Congress has occasionally considered legislation codifying the exclusionary rule or its good-faith exception. The scope of Congress’s authority to enact or modify exclusionary rule jurisprudence depends on the extent to which the exclusionary rule is constitutionally required. The Supreme Court in Davis emphasized that the exclusionary rule’s application is not constitutionally mandated by either the Fourth Amendment or the retroactivity doctrine. Accordingly, Davis supports the view that Congress has substantial authority to mandate the exclusionary rule’s applicability or inapplicability in federal court cases.


Date of Report: August 10, 2011
Number of Pages: 12
Order Number: R41774
Price: $29.95

Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Congressional Responses to Selected Work Stoppages in Professional Sports

L. Elaine Halchin, Coordinator
Specialist in American National Government

Justin Murray
Information Research Specialist

Jon O. Shimabukuro
Legislative Attorney

Kathleen Ann Ruane
Legislative Attorney

Prior to the 2011 National Football League (NFL) lockout, developments in professional football’s labor-management relations had prompted questions regarding how, when, and in what manner a new collective bargaining agreement (CBA) might be drafted. Interest in this matter included, on the part of some observers, questions about how Congress responded to previous work stoppages in professional sports. In attempting to address this particular question, this report examines congressional responses to the 1982 and 1987 work stoppages in the NFL. With the conclusion of the 2011 NFL lockout in July, this work stoppage is also included. Additionally, this report examines the 1994 Major League Baseball strike, which is useful considering the extent of congressional activity surrounding this strike.

Compared to the 1994 baseball strike, the 1982 and 1987 football strikes and the 2011 lockout did not garner much attention from Congress in terms of legislative measures and hearings. Three legislative measures were introduced in response to the 1982 strike; one each was introduced in response to the 1987 strike and the 2011 lockout. Members introduced or offered 22 legislative measures and held five hearings that were related to the baseball strike. With one exception (S.Res. 294, 100th Congress), none of these measures was approved by either house.

Members who introduced, or otherwise supported, legislative measures offered reasons for promoting congressional intervention. Their arguments touched on, for example, the economic impact of work stoppages, the role of baseball’s antitrust exemption in establishing a climate conducive to players’ strikes, previous congressional involvement in professional sports, and a responsibility to ensure the continuity of football (or baseball).

Disagreeing that congressional intervention was warranted, other Members offered several reasons why Congress ought not to intervene. For example, one Member suggested that repealing baseball’s antitrust exemption would alter the balance of power in professional baseball. Other Members believed that more pressing matters deserved Congress’s attention. At least one Member suggested that a particular bill, if enacted, would have the effect of favoring the players over the owners.

A summary of NFL labor-management history may be found in Appendix A. Appendix B provides an overview of key aspects of labor-management relations and sports, and Appendix C includes a discussion of antitrust exemptions applicable to professional sports.


Date of Report: August 11, 2011
Number of Pages: 45
Order Number: R41060
Price: $29.95

Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Women in the United States Congress: 1917-2011

Jennifer E. Manning
Information Research Specialist

Colleen J. Shogan
Acting Senior Advisor to Director and Senior Specialist

Ninety-three women currently serve in the 112th Congress: 76 in the House (52 Democrats and 24 Republicans) and 17 in the Senate (12 Democrats and 5 Republicans). Ninety-two women were initially sworn in to the 112th Congress, but one Democratic House Member has since resigned, and two others have been elected. This number (92) is lower than the record number of 95 women who were initially elected to the 111th Congress.

The first woman elected to Congress was Representative Jeannette Rankin (R-MT, 1917-1919, 1941-1943). The first woman to serve in the Senate was Rebecca Latimer Felton (D-GA). She was appointed in 1922 and served for only one day.

A total of 276 women have served in Congress, 176 Democrats and 100 Republicans. Of these women, 237 (151 Democrats, 86 Republicans) have served only in the House of Representatives; 31 (19 Democrats, 12 Republicans) have served only in the Senate; and 8 (6 Democrats, 2 Republicans) have served in both houses. These figures include one non-voting Delegate each from Guam, Hawaii, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

Edith Nourse Rogers (R-MA), who served in the House for 35 years, holds the record for length of service by a woman in Congress. Currently serving Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) holds the record for Senate service by a woman with 24 years.

Of the 39 women who have served in the Senate, 14 were first appointed, and 5 were first elected to fill unexpired terms. Nine were chosen to fill vacancies caused by the death of their husbands, and one to fill the vacancy caused by the resignation of her father. Of these 10, 3 were subsequently elected to additional terms. Hattie Caraway (D-AR, 1931-1945) was the first Senator to succeed her husband and the first woman elected to a six-year Senate term.

A total of 31 African American or black women have served in Congress (1 in the Senate, 30 in the House), including the 15 serving in the 112th Congress. Eight Hispanic women have been elected to the House; seven serve in the 112th Congress. Six Asian American women have served in the House, including four in the 112th Congress.

Eighteen women in the House, and 10 women in the Senate, have chaired committees. In the 112th Congress, one woman chairs a House committee, and five women chair Senate committees, with one female Senator chairing two committees. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) was the first woman to serve as Speaker of the House, in the 110th and 111th Congresses.

This report identifies the names, committee assignments, dates of service, and (for Representatives) congressional districts of the 276 women who have served in Congress. It will be updated when there are relevant changes in the makeup of Congress.


Date of Report: August 12, 2011
Number of Pages: 110
Order Number: RL30261
Price: $29.95

Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Committee Types and Roles

Valerie Heitshusen
Analyst on Congress and the Legislative Process

Congress divides its legislative, oversight, and internal administrative tasks among more than 200 committees and subcommittees. Within assigned areas, these functional subunits gather information; compare and evaluate legislative alternatives; identify policy problems and propose solutions; select, determine, and report measures for full chamber consideration; monitor executive branch performance (oversight); and investigate allegations of wrongdoing.

The 1946 Legislative Reorganization Act (60 Stat. 812) sets the framework for the modern committee system. The act organized the Senate and House committees along roughly parallel lines, but divergences have emerged over time. Within the guidelines of chamber rules, each committee adopts its own rules addressing organizational, structural, and procedural issues. As a consequence, there is considerable variation among panels and across chambers.

At the beginning of the 112th Congress, there were 20 standing committees in the House with 103 subcommittees, and one select committee.1 The Senate had 16 standing committees with 74 subcommittees, as well as four select or special committees. There were also four joint committees. (In August of 2011, Congress established an additional, but temporary, joint committee, which will not exist beyond January of 2012.)


Date of Report: August 12, 2011
Number of Pages: 4
Order Number: 98-241
Price: $19.95

Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Points of Order in the Congressional Budget Process

James V. Saturno
Section Research Manager

The Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (Titles I-IX of P.L. 93-344, as amended) created a process that Congress uses each year to establish and enforce the parameters for budgetary legislation. Enforcement of budgetary decisions is accomplished through the use of points of order, and through the reconciliation process. Points of order are prohibitions against certain types of legislation or congressional actions. These prohibitions are enforced when a Member raises a point of order against legislation that may violate these rules when it is considered by the House or Senate.

This report summarizes points of order under the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended, and related points of order established in the budget resolutions adopted by Congress in 2007 (S.Con.Res. 21, 110th Congress), 2008 (S.Con.Res. 70, 110th Congress), and 2009 (S.Con.Res. 13, 111th Congress), as well as the Rules of the House for the 112th Congress, the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-508), and the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-139). In addition, it describes how points of order are applied and the processes used for their waiver in the House and Senate.


Date of Report: August 12, 2011
Number of Pages: 16
Order Number: 97-865
Price: $29.95

Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.