N.D.Ohio: Where there was no nexus and whether GFE should apply was a really close question, govt essentially gets the benefit of the doubt

“For the reasons that follow, the Court DENIES Defendant Eben Anderson’s motion to suppress. With respect to Defendant Anthony Anderson, the affidavit supporting the warrant lacks probable cause justifying the search because there is no nexus between the phones and any suspected criminal conduct. Whether the good-faith exception to the requirement for probable cause applies presents a close and difficult question on the facts and circumstances of this case. Indeed, the question could scarcely be closer. Under that exception, a search requires only a minimally sufficient nexus between the items to be searched and the alleged criminal conduct. On the facts and circumstances of this case, the Court determines that there is such a nexus, if barely. Therefore, the Court DENIES Defendant Anthony Anderson’s motion to suppress. Finally, because Defendants make only legal arguments and not factual arguments, the Court also declines to hold evidentiary hearings on the motions.” United States v. Anderson, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 206717 (N.D.Ohio Oct. 27, 2021).*

The dispute on the facts as to plaintiff’s shooting shows, if he is believed, that clearly established law was violated. The district court erred in granting summary judgment. Thomas v. Cty. of Sacramento, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 32199 (9th Cir. Oct. 27, 2021).*