The court finds that \u201cthe good faith exception to the exclusionary rule does not apply here. Contrary to the government’s assertion, this case directly fits the Supreme Court’s admonition in Leon that \u2018[s]uppression … remains an appropriate remedy if the magistrate or judge in issuing a 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 of the truth.\u2019 Leon, 468 U.S at 923; see also id. at 926 (\u2018[S]uppression is appropriate … if the officers were dishonest or reckless in preparing their affidavit or could not have harbored an objectively reasonable belief in the existence of probable cause.\u2019).\u201d There was nothing to support probable cause except the officer\u2019s experience. No facts, no nothing. United States v. Roman, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 145893 (D. Mass. Aug. 28, 2018).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The court finds that \u201cthe good faith exception to the exclusionary rule does not apply here. Contrary to the government’s assertion, this case directly fits the Supreme Court’s admonition in Leon that \u2018[s]uppression … remains an appropriate remedy if the … Continue reading