Officer’s testimony was that he believed he had probable cause, so the good faith exception applies, absent evidence he didn’t have probable cause. [Won’t they always testify they did?] United States v. Gravitt, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88687 (N.D. Okla. October 31, 2008):<\/p>\n
In this case, Wilson relied on a warrant and the Court must presume that he was acting in good faith unless there are facts that indicate his reliance on the warrant was unreasonable. At the suppression hearing, Wilson testified that he relied upon Judge Klein’s finding of probable cause and believed he was serving a valid warrant. Defendant has not shown that Wilson’s affidavit was devoid of factual support or that his reliance on the warrant was wholly unwarranted. Wilson produced evidence of short-term traffic at West’s residence that was consistent with drug trafficking. He conducted his own surveillance to confirm this fact and used an RCI to determine if drug sales were taking place at the subject residence. He also confirmed the identity of West with the RCI and checked West’s criminal history. Therefore, Wilson’s affidavit states sufficient facts to show that his reliance on the warrant was reasonable and the good faith exception applies to this case.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Comment:<\/em> Descartes<\/a> said “I think, therefore I am.”<\/a> This sums up the good faith exception. I believe I acted in good faith, and, as long as there is at least a sliver of evidence that I was not acting in bad faith, I will be found to be acting in good faith. However, good faith should not equate with lack of proof of bad faith, but, regretfully in this world, it does.<\/p>\n
Close only applies in horseshoes and the good faith exception.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading