MO: Uncorroborated anonymous tip wasn’t PC and GFE doesn’t apply

Uncorroborated anonymous tip: “Because the affidavit relies almost entirely on an uncorroborated anonymous tip and includes no information regarding the tipster’s reliability or the specific details of the anonymous tip, it failed to supply the warrant-issuing judge with a reasonable basis to find probable cause justifying the seizure and testing of Barrera’s urine. Thus, we agree with the motion court’s conclusion that the warrant-issuing judge clearly erred in issuing the warrant.” And no good faith exception: “Accordingly, the false information included in the affidavit provides an additional basis for denying application of the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule. Under these circumstances, we agree with the motion court that the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule is inapplicable to this case and we thus conclude the motion court did not err in suppressing the results of Barrera’s urine test.” State v. Barrera, 2025 Mo. App. LEXIS 350 (May 27, 2025).

The exclusionary rule can apply in some probation searches if probation officers are stalking horses for the police. That didn’t happen here. State v. Sykes, 2025 Conn. App. LEXIS 154 (May 27, 2025).*

The informant was fully corroborated in facts that defendant was a parole violator. State v. Hamilton, 2025 Conn. App. LEXIS 150 (May 1, 2025).*

This entry was posted in Exclusionary rule, Good faith exception, Informant hearsay, Probation / Parole search. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.