There was a failure of particularity in this document search warrant, which the government effectively concedes, and it falls back to the good faith exception to save it. The court concludes, however, in a long analysis, that the deterrent benefits of exclusion require suppressing the evidence in this case despite the subjective good faith of the search team that was briefed ahead of time on what to do. It’s not the defendant’s burden at the time of the search to point out the government’s errors. “Viewed objectively, the conduct of the officers acting under the circumstances described above, cannot be found to be in accord with a good faith belief that their actions were lawful.” United States v. Drago, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164588 (E.D. N.Y. Sept. 10, 2019), adopted, Sep 24, 2019 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164451 (E.D. N.Y. Sept. 24, 2019):
It is unnecessary to determine whether or not Drago pointed out the deficiencies in the Warrant. The Court has already found the conduct of the search sufficiently reckless such that no objective officer could have believed that they were acting in good faith. While acceptance of Drago’s version of events would add to the reasons for that determination, it is not necessary to that holding. It is not the Defendant’s responsibility to alert law enforcement to the Constitutional requirements of executing a search warrant. Viewed objectively, the conduct of the officers acting under the circumstances described above, cannot be found to be in accord with a good faith belief that their actions were lawful. Whether or not Drago pointed out the insufficiency of the Warrant, the facts here show deliberately reckless conduct sufficient to outweigh the costs of suppression.
In sum, bad faith and bad intent are not the only circumstances that can defeat application of the exclusionary rule. If that were the case, good faith would save the fruits of the Kayla Search from exclusion. However, as this case demonstrates, even in the absence of bad intent, the circumstances may show such disregard for the requirements of the Constitution that exclusion must be the only remedy. Here, officers executed what can only be referred to as a general warrant. The testimony shows that the Warrant guided their search. While the plainly unconstitutional language of the Warrant should have raised doubts, no individual in the line of institutional or searching review ever raised a question as to whether or not the Warrant was valid. The Government argues that no questions were raised because everyone on the team knew what they were looking for. The Court may not, however, rely on what may have been in the minds of officers who had long participated in an investigation. Were that the case, there would be no need for any warrant to circumscribe the boundaries of a search. Instead, courts would be required to validate searches so long as there was a general understanding as to the proper scope of a search that existed in the collective recollection of the members of an investigation. Such a rule would swallow the need for any warrant at all. Here, the document against which each item for seizure must have been evaluated failed to limit the search in any meaningful way. Under the circumstances here, there cannot have been any objective belief that the search was legal. The need for deterrence is high enough to sustain the cost of the remedy of exclusion.
by John Wesley Hall
Criminal Defense Lawyer and
Search and seizure law consultant
Little Rock, Arkansas
Contact: forhall @ aol.com / The Book www.johnwesleyhall.com
"If it was easy, everybody would be doing it. It isn't, and they don't." —Me
"Life is not a matter of holding good cards, but of playing a poor hand well." –Josh Billings (pseudonym of Henry Wheeler Shaw), Josh Billings on Ice, and Other Things (1868) (erroneously attributed to Robert Louis Stevenson, among others)
“I am still learning.” —Domenico Giuntalodi (but misattributed to Michelangelo Buonarroti (common phrase throughout 1500's)).
"Love work; hate mastery over others; and avoid intimacy with the government."
—Shemaya, in the Thalmud
"It is a pleasant world we live in, sir, a very pleasant world. There are bad people in it, Mr. Richard, but if there were no bad people, there would be no good lawyers."
—Charles Dickens, “The Old Curiosity Shop ... With a Frontispiece. From a Painting by Geo. Cattermole, Etc.” 255 (1848)
"A system of law that not only makes certain conduct criminal, but also lays down rules for the conduct of the authorities, often becomes complex in its application to individual cases, and will from time to time produce imperfect results, especially if one's attention is confined to the particular case at bar. Some criminals do go free because of the necessity of keeping government and its servants in their place. That is one of the costs of having and enforcing a Bill of Rights. This country is built on the assumption that the cost is worth paying, and that in the long run we are all both freer and safer if the Constitution is strictly enforced."
—Williams
v. Nix, 700 F. 2d 1164, 1173 (8th Cir. 1983) (Richard Sheppard Arnold,
J.), rev'd Nix v. Williams, 467 US. 431 (1984).
"The criminal goes free, if he must, but it is the law that sets him free. Nothing can destroy a government more quickly than its failure to observe its own laws,
or worse, its disregard of the charter of its own existence." —Mapp
v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 659 (1961).
"Any costs the exclusionary rule are costs imposed directly by the Fourth Amendment."
—Yale Kamisar, 86 Mich.L.Rev. 1, 36 n. 151 (1987).
"There have been powerful hydraulic pressures throughout our history that
bear heavily on the Court to water down constitutional guarantees and give the
police the upper hand. That hydraulic pressure has probably never been greater
than it is today."
— Terry
v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 39 (1968) (Douglas, J., dissenting).
"The great end, for which men entered into society, was to secure their
property."
—Entick
v. Carrington, 19 How.St.Tr. 1029, 1066, 95 Eng. Rep. 807 (C.P. 1765)
"It is a fair summary of history to say that the safeguards of liberty have
frequently been forged in controversies involving not very nice people. And
so, while we are concerned here with a shabby defrauder, we must deal with his
case in the context of what are really the great themes expressed by the Fourth
Amendment."
—United
States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56, 69 (1950) (Frankfurter, J., dissenting)
"The course of true law pertaining to searches and seizures, as enunciated
here, has not–to put it mildly–run smooth."
—Chapman
v. United States, 365 U.S. 610, 618 (1961) (Frankfurter, J., concurring).
"A search is a search, even if it happens to disclose nothing but the
bottom of a turntable."
—Arizona
v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321, 325 (1987)
"For the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places. What a person knowingly
exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth
Amendment protection. ... But what he seeks to preserve as private, even in
an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected."
—Katz
v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 351 (1967)
“Experience should teach us to be most on guard to
protect liberty when the Government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born
to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded
rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men
of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.”
—United
States v. Olmstead, 277 U.S. 438, 479 (1925) (Brandeis, J., dissenting)
“Liberty—the freedom from unwarranted
intrusion by government—is as easily lost through insistent nibbles by
government officials who seek to do their jobs too well as by those whose purpose
it is to oppress; the piranha can be as deadly as the shark.”
—United
States v. $124,570, 873 F.2d 1240, 1246 (9th Cir. 1989)
"You can't always get what you want /
But if you try sometimes / You just might find / You get what you need."
—Mick Jagger & Keith Richards
"In Germany, they first came for the communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for
the Catholics and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Catholic. Then they came
for me–and by that time there was nobody left to speak up."
—Martin Niemöller (1945) [he served seven years in a concentration
camp]
“You know, most men would get discouraged by
now. Fortunately for you, I am not most men!”
---Pepé Le Pew
"The point of the Fourth Amendment, which often is not grasped by zealous officers,
is not that it denies law enforcement the support of the usual inferences which
reasonable men draw from evidence. Its protection consists in requiring that
those inferences be drawn by a neutral and detached magistrate instead of being
judged by the officer engaged in the often competitive enterprise of ferreting
out crime."
—Johnson
v. United States, 333 U.S. 10, 13-14 (1948)