Eleventh Circuit Ruling on the Exclusionary Rule:  At Volokh Conspiracy, Orin Kerr reports on the Eleventh Circuit's decision in United States v. Farias-Gonzales and comments that the Eleventh Circuit was wrong to apply the Hudson v. Michigan framework to hold that identity information cannot be suppressed under the Fourth Amendment.   In Farias-Gonzales, Jose Farias-Gonzalez was stopped and searched in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights.  During the search, the officers obtained identity information that led them to conclude he was an immigrant who had been removed from the United States and reentered illegally.  The government brought charges for illegal reentry based on the evidence obtained by the unlawful stop and search.  Kerr is troubled by the approach the court took in applying Hudson's balancing analysis because instead of using the cost/benefit analysis as it applied to a defined legal category of the Fourth Amendment error, as the U.S. Supreme Court had done in Hudson and Herring v. United States, the Eleventh Circuit "applied balancing to the type of information illegally obtained ...."  Kerr worries that the adoption of balancing approach to exclusion based on the category of information obtained will let every state and federal court do pretty much whatever the court wants with every Fourth Amendment violation raised in every motion to suppress.  Courts will be able to do this, he maintains, because defining a category of information is arbitrary.  Kerr suspects the judges did not consider this point when it adopted Hudson - especially since it appears the panel came up with the Hudson approach on its own.