IL: Outdated warrant list could not be relied on; Herring not applied

Officer’s reliance on his memory about a warrant list he saw earlier in the week where the warrant turned out to be recalled after that arrested the defendant without probable cause, and the exclusionary rule would be applied. Herring‘s good faith exception was not applied. People v. Arnold, 914 N.E.2d 1143, 333 Ill. Dec. 331 (2009):

In proceeding to the second part of the analysis–whether the facts of the fourth amendment violation at issue support suppression–we conclude that they do. Here, as in Morgan, Officer Dykema’s decision to proceed with handcuffing the defendant, despite the lack of confirmation that there was an active arrest warrant for the defendant, went beyond mere negligence and constituted reckless disregard. Such a decision is the type that can be deterred by suppression of evidence. See Morgan, 388 Ill. App. 3d at 265 (“the officers’ reliance on an up-to-three-day-old warrant list is conduct that can be deterred”). Finally, the benefits of suppression outweigh the costs, in that the need to deter police from handcuffing a citizen without confirming whether there is a valid warrant for his arrest outweighs the costs of hindering the State from prosecuting this particular defendant. Thus, the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule does not apply here, and the evidence was properly suppressed.

The State also argues that, apart from the warrant, Officer Dykema had probable cause to arrest the defendant for driving while his driver’s license was revoked. We must reject this argument in light of our holding that the defendant was arrested before the dispatcher provided Officer Dykema with any information, as Officer Dykema conceded that he did not know the status of the defendant’s license at the time he handcuffed the defendant in the store. Accordingly, the defendant’s arrest cannot be justified on the basis that the police had probable cause to believe that his license was revoked.

In sum, the police initiated the arrest before obtaining probable cause to believe either that there was a valid warrant for the defendant or that his license was revoked, and under the Herring suppression analysis the evidence gained from the search incident to arrest was properly suppressed. Even if suppression were not justified based on the invalidity of the arrest, however, we would still affirm the trial court’s suppression order because the search performed by Officer Dykema was not a valid search incident to arrest.

A license plate hanging by one bolt was reasonable suspicion for a stop. State v. Martin, 148 Idaho 31, 218 P.3d 10 (Ida. App. 2009).*

Officer’s observation that the defendant passenger was still but nervous was not reasonable suspicion. Nothing in the car added to RS. United States v. Moore, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81547 (E.D. Tenn. September 8, 2009).*

CI’s statements about the defendant’s activities were based on personal observations, and that was probable cause. United States v. Hinton, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81750 (E.D. Mo. August 25, 2009).*