CA11: GFE applies even if no PC, which was “hotly contested”

The good faith exception supports this search warrant, even if there wasn’t probable cause after a trash pull, an issue not decided. The existence of probable cause was “hotly contested.” United States v. Morales, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 3260 (11th Cir. Feb. 4, 2021):

Based on evidence seized during a search of his home, Jose Antonio Morales was convicted of possession of marijuana with intent to distribute and of unlawful possession of a firearm and ammunition. On appeal, Morales claims that the affidavit supporting the search warrant — which reported that police had found a small amount of marijuana and related items in trash outside Morales’s house on two separate occasions three days apart — did not establish probable cause to justify the search. We need not decide whether Morales is correct, for even if he is (and this matter is hotly contested), suppression of the fruits of the search would be inappropriate under the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule. See United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 922 (1984).

The exclusionary rule exists to deter unreasonable searches, but the police here did exactly what the Fourth Amendment required of them: they obtained a warrant in good faith from a neutral magistrate and reasonably relied on it. They had no reason to believe that probable cause was absent despite the magistrate’s authorization. There is no evidence in this record that the affidavit supporting the warrant misled the magistrate or that it contained false information. The affidavit was not lacking in indicia of probable cause so as to render the executing officers’ belief in its existence unreasonable. Nor, finally, was the warrant facially deficient because it failed to particularize the place to be searched or the things to be seized. All of that makes this case a clear application of the good faith exception.

If probable cause is “hotly contested,” it shows that the affidavit for the warrant is not “bare bones.”