UT: There was PC for the warrant, and whether there is a state exclusionary rule doesn’t have to be decided

The trial court erred in concluding there was no probable cause for the issuance of the search warrant, but the good faith exception applied. Instead, there was a substantial basis for issuance of the search warrant, and the exclusionary rule question thus doesn’t have to be decided. There were specific nonconclusory facts, and the trial court did not read the affidavit in a “common sense” fashion giving deference to the issuance of the warrant, instead reading it conclusorily. State v. Rowan, 2017 UT 88, 2017 Utah LEXIS 205 (Dec. 1, 2017).

[*P3] On appeal, we are asked to consider (1) whether there was a substantial basis for the magistrate’s probable cause determination; (2) whether this court recognized an exclusionary rule under article I, section 14 of the Utah Constitution in State v. Thompson and State v. Larocco; and (3) if we did recognize an exclusionary rule under the Utah Constitution, whether there should be a good faith exception. Because we conclude that there was a substantial basis for the magistrate’s probable cause determination and that therefore the evidence should not have been suppressed, we do not reach the questions of whether we have recognized an exclusionary rule under article I, section 14 of the Utah Constitution or whether there should be a good faith exception to such a rule. We therefore reverse the district court.