Officer had to know that uncorroborated informant tip was insufficient, so good faith exception did not save warrant

Officer provided a deficient description of what evidence they had accumulated that defendant was involved in fires, and the search warrant was not supported by probable cause, and it was so deficient that reliance on it was unreasonable, so the good faith exception did not apply. Child porn was found on his computer. United States v. Carney, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46640 (W.D. Pa. June 27, 2007):

Defendant’s position is that any reasonable officer would have realized that an uncorroborated, anonymous telephone tip cannot provide probable cause for a search warrant. Defendant cites to numerous federal court decisions which have held that the need to corroborate an anonymous tip with independent police work is so well-established that the failure to do so falls below the standard for the Leon exception to apply. See e.g., United States v. Helton, 314 F.3d 812 (6th Cir. 2003) (reasonable officer, as affiant applying for search warrant, would not have believed that anonymous tipster’s statements were trustworthy and reliable, consequently, good faith exception to exclusionary rule did not apply); United States v. Wilhelm, 80 F.3d 116, 120 (4th Cir. 1996) (search warrant which was based on affidavit providing information from anonymous informant was not supported by probable cause where affidavit provided no indication of informant’s truthfulness or reliability other than officer’s conclusory description of informant as “concerned citizen” and “mature person” and police only corroborated that directions which informant gave to defendant’s home were correct); United States v. Barrington, 806 F.2d 529, 532 (5th Cir. 1986) (probable cause affidavit which stated that police officer received information from confidential informant who was known to officer and who had provided information in past leading to arrest and convictions, did not justify police officer’s good-faith reliance on warrant in his search of hotel room).

As acknowledged by the government, Trooper Frew, who drafted the warrant affidavit, “could have and should have included more direct evidence that he and Trooper Valyo had gathered in the course of their investigation.” As it was, the only information in the warrant affidavit to link defendant to the arsons in the Armagh area was the uncorroborated, anonymous telephone tip. Beyond that, there was no information in the affidavit to connect defendant or his computer to the arsons.

Illegal search that produced additional drugs did not affect the defendant’s sentencing guideline range. United States v. Jock, 239 Fed. Appx. 126, 2007 FED App. 0437N (6th Cir. 2007)* (unpublished).

Defendant had no standing, so his attorney could not be ineffective for not challenging the search. Hayden v. United States, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46447 (E.D. Mich. June 27, 2007).*