{"id":4261,"date":"2011-01-11T16:36:53","date_gmt":"2010-06-06T10:47:00","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2010-06-06T10:47:00","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=4261","title":{"rendered":"CA5: PC not resolved under good faith exception without a “novel question”"},"content":{"rendered":"

Defendant was indicted and wanted in Tennessee, and he was seen in Bowie County, Texas. He was a known drug dealer. The officer put all he knew about the defendant in the search warrant request and included that in his experience drug dealers keep drugs and guns. The affidavit was not bare bones, and the question of probable cause is not even addressed because of the lack of a \u201cnovel question\u201d of PC. The defendant then consented to a search of off-site storage buildings. United States v. Fields<\/a>, 380 Fed. Appx. 400 (5th Cir. 2010) (unpublished)*:<\/p>\n

\u201cThis court reviews conclusions of law regarding the sufficiency of a warrant de novo. Our review involves a two-step process, whereby we must first determine whether the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies. Only if a novel legal question is presented or the good-faith exception does not apply must we then ensure that the magistrate had a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed.\u201d Whether (1) knowledge of where a drug-dealer resides plus (2) an officer\u2019s experience that such people hide drugs in their homes can support reliance on a warrant is not a novel question in this Circuit, so we engage only in the good-faith analysis.<\/p>\n

. . .<\/p>\n

The officers in good faith relied on a warrant to search Fields\u2019s home. Because the warrant allowed the police to search the \u201cpremises,\u201d the police could comb-through Fields\u2019s car parked on the property. The district court did not err in allowing fruits of the home and car searches to come in evidence based on the good-faith exception, emphasizing again that we do not pass on whether probable cause existed. (footnotes omitted)<\/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-4261","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4261","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=4261"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4261\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=4261"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=4261"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=4261"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}