{"id":3543,"date":"2010-03-23T09:07:33","date_gmt":"2009-11-17T07:03:58","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2009-11-17T07:03:58","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=3543","title":{"rendered":"IN: Failure to show nexus precludes application of GFE"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Failure to show nexus to the premises precluded application of the good faith exception to the search. <a href=\"http:\/\/courts.delaware.gov\/opinions\/(1irv5o45bey1uzz5hlkcmvqo)\/download.aspx?ID=129850\">Rice v. State<\/a>, 916 N.E.2d 296 (Ind. App. 2009):<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>Although the trial court found Officer Yarnell&#8217;s affidavit lacking in indicia of probable cause such that official belief in its existence was entirely unreasonable, it also found the police conduct was not sufficiently deliberate that exclusion of the evidence could meaningfully deter it. The purpose of the exclusionary rule is to deter law enforcement officers from committing constitutional violations and therefore, evidence should be suppressed &#8220;only if it can be said that the law enforcement officer had knowledge, or may properly be charged with knowledge, that the search was unconstitutional &#8230;.&#8221; <a href=\"http:\/\/caselaw.lp.findlaw.com\/scripts\/getcase.pl?court=us&amp;vol=000&amp;invol=07-513\">Herring<\/a>, 129 S. Ct. at 701 (quoting <a href=\"http:\/\/caselaw.lp.findlaw.com\/scripts\/getcase.pl?court=us&amp;vol=480&amp;invol=340\">Illinois v. Krull<\/a>, 480 U.S. 340, 348-49, 107 S. Ct. 1160, 94 L. Ed. 2d 364 (1987)). We believe Officer Yarnell may be charged with knowledge that an arrest warrant issued on the basis of his affidavit was unconstitutional and as in Hensley, exclusion can therefore have a deterrent effect by ensuring future affidavits contain sufficient information from which a judicial officer can make a determination of probable cause and do not merely state conclusions as a substitute for adequate police investigation.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>The officer entered defendant\u2019s home after storms and a power failure for no apparent reason. His seizure of a glass pipe in plain view was unreasonable. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.pacourts.us\/OpPosting\/Superior\/out\/A09011_09.pdf\">Commonwealth v. Rowe<\/a>, 2009 PA Super 215, 984 A.2d 524 (2009):<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>[*P7]  On the strength of only an open doorway on an evening when there had been storms, Corporal Muse entered Appellant&#8217;s house and proceeded to go from room to room, calling out his status as an officer, checking whether anyone was home. When he arrived upstairs, he entered Appellant&#8217;s bedroom, where he observed an empty glass pipe sitting next to a computer on a desk, mail addressed to Appellant in the trash can, and a paycheck on a dresser top that was lodged in the bedroom closet.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Nighttime probation search was justified by reasonable suspicion. The probation condition allowed a \u201csearch at any time.\u201d There was a checklist for nighttime probation searches, but it was reasonable. There is no separate constitutional standard for a nighttime probation search. <a href=\"http:\/\/courts.delaware.gov\/opinions\/(1irv5o45bey1uzz5hlkcmvqo)\/download.aspx?ID=129850\">King v. State<\/a>,  984 A.2d 1205 (Del. 2009).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>b2evALnk.b2WPAutP <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=3543\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/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-3543","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3543","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=3543"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3543\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=3543"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=3543"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=3543"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}