LA5 botches GFE by equating it with a defense need to prove “bad faith”

The probable cause for the search warrant was a controlled buy, but the defendant claimed the CI wasn’t shown to be otherwise credible. [That’s not required in a controlled buy.] The good faith exception applies because the defendant didn’t allege the officer “obtained the warrant in bad faith.” State v. Gaubert, 2014 La. App. LEXIS 2991 (La.App. 5 Cir. December 16, 2014):

After considering the totality of the circumstances, we find that there was a substantial basis in the affidavit upon which the criminal commissioner could have found probable cause to issue the search warrant. Even assuming the affidavit did not establish probable cause to support the issuance of a search warrant, suppression of the evidence seized pursuant to the warrant is not automatically required. See, Robinson at 581. Where a law enforcement officer relies in good faith on a magistrate’s probable cause determination and the technical sufficiency of the warrant, exclusion of the evidence is not proper. Id., citing United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 104 S. Ct. 3405, 82 L. Ed. 2d 677 (1984). Defendant did not allege Det. Saddler obtained the warrant in bad faith.

Comment: Bad faith isn’t only the standard for lack of “good faith.” Since that’s not the standard, this court is just wrong on that and shows to me that the court has never even read Leon or one word of comment about the good faith exception in the 30 years it’s been around. The PC argument was enough to decide this case without also just wandering off and screwing up the good faith standard at the same time. This case is so off the wall on the good faith exception that I might just cite it for this in the treatise to show how courts get it wrong.