TN: Absence of a probation search condition fatal to probation search; good faith exception does not apply to warrantless searches

Absence of a search provision in defendant’s probation conditions did not permit officers to conduct a probation search of his property. The state’s argument that the good faith exception should apply to warrantless searches was not presented below, but it would be rejected anyway even if it was. State v. Howell, 2008 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 221 (March 18, 2008):

B. Application of the “Good Faith Exception” to the Warrantless Search

The State first raised the argument that the search of Defendant’s body shop/garage and vehicle should be upheld because of the “good faith exception” as enunciated in United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) in its Motion to Reconsider filed with the trial court following that court’s ruling on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and/or Suppress Evidence. On appeal, the State concedes that the instant case is distinguishable from Leon. The ruling in Leon was based upon a search warrant, issued by a neutral and detached magistrate, that was objectively and reasonably relied upon by law enforcement officers even though the affidavit on which the warrant was based did not establish probable cause. The State urges this Court to extend the Leon “good faith exception” to warrantless searches when a magistrate advises law enforcement officers to search without a warrant based upon unsworn statements of the officers.

First, the issue was not presented to the trial court in a timely fashion to even enable the trial court to make a finding of fact as to the existence of “good faith.” Accordingly, we are not willing, in this case, even if inclined to do so, to extend the ruling in Leon to warrantless searches. Second, this Court has held, “adopting a good faith exception under the Tennessee Constitution would unduly reduce the protections contemplated for our citizens by the Tennessee Constitution, the legislature, and the Tennessee Supreme Court.” State v. Husky, 177 S.W.3d 868, 890 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2005). Therefore, the state is not entitled to relief as to this issue.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.