omitted)). 24 .See Herring, 555 U.S. at 137-38, 147-48, 129 S.Ct. 695 (concluding that where law enforcement violated a defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights due to a "bookkeeping error by another police employee” the exclusionary rule did not apply because suppression would not serve the end of deterring wrongful police conduct as the "error was the result of isolated negligence attenuated from the arrest”). 25 . See Davis, 131 S.Ct. at 2428-2429 (finding application of the exclusionary rule inappropriate and the good faith exception applicable where the law enforcement officers relied on binding judicial precedent that seemingly sanctioned their actions and they acted in objectively reasonable reliance on this precedent). 26 . 460 U.S. 276, 281, 103 S.Ct. 1081, 75 L.Ed.2d 55 (1983) (<HOLDING>). 27 . 468 U.S. 705, 714-15, 104 S.Ct. 3296, 82
holding that the defendant in that case could not have an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in incriminating evidence when the garbage was in containers readily accessible and visible from public thoroughfares holding that defendants had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the common areas of an apartment building holding that traveling in an automobile on public thoroughfares has no reasonable expectation of privacy in his movement from one place to another holding that captain has reasonable expectation of privacy in all areas of his ship holding that the constitutional protection of an individuals reasonable expectation of privacy in his or her home does not extend to a place of business