CA5: Affidavit for SW here was thin, but not bare bones boilerplate; suppression reversed

The affidavit for warrant here was thin, but not bare bones boilerplate. There was something to go on, and it’s enough for the good faith exception to apply. The district court erred in suppressing. United States v. Weaver, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 9614 (5th Cir. Apr. 2, 2026)*:

Comparing the warrant here with other cases, “[w]hatever one might conclude in hindsight about the strength of the evidence it recounts, the affidavit is not ‘wholly conclusory.'” Morton, 46 F.4th at 337. Accordingly, the good-faith exception applies. “And because the good-faith exception applies, ‘our analysis ends’ and ‘we need not reach the question of probable cause.'” Norman, 129 F.4th at 877 (quoting United States v. Cavazos, 288 F.3d 706, 709 (5th Cir. 2002); see also Morton, 46 F.4th at 339 (“We do not decide if the state judge should have authorized [the search] based on these affidavits. We decide only that the officers acted in good faith when relying on the judge’s decision to issue the warrants.”).

This entry was posted in Good faith exception. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.