{"id":3012,"date":"2009-07-14T07:10:36","date_gmt":"2009-03-19T06:37:52","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2009-03-19T06:37:52","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=3012","title":{"rendered":"IN: AL arrest warrant was clearly invalidly issued, and GFE would not be applied under Herring<\/em>"},"content":{"rendered":"

Indiana officers executed an Alabama arrest warrant that was clearly issued on a mere conclusion that there was probable cause, rather than a finding of probable cause. The good faith exception would not be applied because it was a clear police error, even in another state by another department. Shotts v. State<\/a>, 907 N.E.2d 134 (Ind. App. 2009):<\/p>\n

Alternatively, the State argues that if the warrant is constitutionally invalid, then the “good faith exception” applies to save the evidence seized during Shotts’s arrest. It is true that the exclusionary rule does not automatically apply each time a search and seizure technically violates the Fourth Amendment. As the U.S. Supreme Court explained, “Particularly when law enforcement officers have acted in objective good faith or their transgressions have been minor, the magnitude of the benefit conferred on such guilty defendants offends basic concepts of the criminal justice system.” United States v. Leon<\/a>, 468 U.S. 897, 907-08, 104 S. Ct. 3405, 82 L. Ed. 2d 677 (1984). Our good faith inquiry is confined to the objectively ascertainable question whether a reasonably well-trained officer would have known that the search was illegal in light of all of the circumstances. Id. at 922 n.23. If the answer is no, then the evidence, though seized illegally, is admissible. Suppression is appropriate if: (1) the magistrate or judge who issued the warrant was misled by information in an affidavit that the affiant knew was false or would have known was false except for his reckless disregard for the truth; (2) the issuing magistrate wholly abandoned his neutral judicial role; (3) the affidavit supporting the warrant was so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render official belief in its existence entirely unreasonable; or (4) a warrant is so facially deficient that the executing officers cannot reasonably presume it to be valid. Id. at 923.<\/p>\n

The State claims that because the Indiana officers executed the arrest warrant without actually seeing it, they cannot be charged with knowledge of any defects and thus must have acted in good faith. Our inquiry is not limited merely to the law enforcement officers who execute the warrant, however. Clearly, the Indiana officers in this case were acting in good faith, but what about the Alabama officer who obtained the warrant in the first place? There is no question that he knew or should have known that his testimony was insufficient to support a probable cause determination. Objectively speaking, the affidavit was so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render official belief in the warrant’s validity entirely unreasonable. To allow law enforcement to insulate the State from the operation of the exclusionary rule by simply creating one degree of separation between the officer acting in bad faith and the officer executing the warrant would serve no deterrent effect whatsoever. Thus, based upon this officer’s actions, the good faith exception does not apply in this case.<\/p>\n

Even as the U.S. Supreme Court continues to limit the application of the exclusionary rule, focusing upon “deliberate, reckless, or grossly negligent conduct, or in some circumstances recurring or systemic negligence[,]” it still appears that the facts of this case would trigger operation of the federal rule. See Herring v. U.S.<\/a>, 555 U.S. ___, 129 S.Ct. 695, 702, 172 L. Ed. 2d 496 (2009). Just as the U.S. Supreme Court focused on the record management system in Herring, in this case the bad faith occurred prior to the information being submitted to NCIC and the executing officers.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3012","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3012","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=3012"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3012\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=3012"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=3012"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=3012"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}