CA5: When USMJ’s findings are based on PC and GFE, def must appeal both or be subject to plain error, and here it’s not

When the USMJ rules on both probable cause and the good faith exception, the objections have to go to both. Here, defendant only objected to the probable cause finding and not the application of the good faith exception, so the appeal was subject to plain error analysis, which it is not. United States v. Harp, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 3627 (5th Cir. Feb. 5, 2020).

“It is true of course that a warrant issued without probable cause violates the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, section 10 of the South Carolina Constitution and makes any seizure based solely on the warrant unlawful. See, e.g., Manuel v. City of Joliet, Ill., 137 S. Ct. 911, 919 (2017) (stating in a §1983 case, ‘[i]f the complaint is that a form of legal process resulted in pretrial detention unsupported by probable cause, then the right allegedly infringed lies in the Fourth Amendment’). But a facially valid warrant that proves to lack probable cause does not make the initial arrest unlawful for the purposes of the tort of false arrest. Otherwise, the doctrine of facial validity would be extinct.” “We agree with the trial court that the arrest warrant was facially valid. The facially valid inquiry is not an invitation to look beyond the language of the warrant, which need only contain information given under oath that ‘plainly and substantially’ sets forth the offense charged.” Carter v. Bryant, 2020 S.C. LEXIS 9 (Jan. 15, 2020).*

This entry was posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Standards of review. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.