IN: State’s reliance on GFE not waived where it didn’t argue it but trial court decided it

“The totality of the evidence before the issuing judge was sufficient to establish probable cause. Detective Salley’s affidavit in support of the search warrant had outlined observations that law enforcement had made during surveillance of the Astro Drive Residence, which, based on his training and experience, he had opined to be ‘indicative of narcotics sales.’ … Detective Salley had also detailed two controlled buys between the CI and Target 1, with the circumstances of both supporting the reasonable inference that the drugs in question had been sourced out of the Astro Drive Residence. … [T]he CI was known to law enforcement and had provided information that had been deemed reliable by independent investigation.” This was enough for probable cause. The state did not address the good faith exception, but the trial court ruled on it, so it’s not waived. State v. Rivera, 2025 Ind. App. LEXIS 97 (Mar. 28, 2025).

No CoA: “Here, reasonable jurists would not debate the denial of Louis’s claim that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress certain cell-site location information obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment (Claim 1). When law enforcement obtained Louis’s cell-site location information, there was no binding precedent that Fla. Stat. § 934.23 violated the Fourth Amendment or that a warrant supported by probable cause was required to obtain the information sought. Thus, it was reasonable for law enforcement to rely on § 934.23 to obtain historical cell-site location data without a warrant.” Louis v. Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 7338 (11th Cir. Mar. 28, 2025).*

This entry was posted in Cell site location information, Good faith exception, Probable cause. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.