W.D.Pa.: GFE applies to warrantless stop based on reasonable mistake of fact

The good faith exception is here directly applied to a warrantless stop and resulting search because of a “reasonable” mistake of law. United States v. McBroom, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 215219 (W.D.Pa. Nov. 8. 2021):

C. Good Faith Exception to the Exclusionary Rule

Even if this Court were to have concluded that the officers’ mistake of law was not objectively reasonable, suppression of the evidence would still not be warranted. The exclusionary “rule’s sole purpose, … is to deter future Fourth Amendment violations.” Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229, 236-37, 131 S. Ct. 2419, 180 L. Ed. 2d 285, (2011). “[B]ecause some unconstitutional conduct is unlikely to be deterred by the threat of sanctions, exclusion is not a blanket remedy.” Virgin Islands v. John, 654 F.3d 412, 417, 55 V.I. 1324, (3d Cir. 2011). “‘To trigger the exclusionary rule, police conduct must be sufficiently deliberate that exclusion can meaningfully deter it, and sufficiently culpable that such deterrence is worth the price paid by the justice system.'” United States v. Wright, 777 F.3d 635, 638 (3d Cir. 2015) (quoting Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135, 144, 129 S. Ct. 695, 172 L. Ed. 2d 496 (2009)). Here, the officers conducted a traffic stop reasonably believing that a turn signal was required. The officers credibly testified that they did not view any turn signal in use. Their actions were not “deliberate, reckless, or grossly negligent conduct, or [evidence of] recurring or systemic negligence.” Herring, 555 U.S. at 144. Such conduct is unlikely to be deterred by the threat of sanctions, and therefore exclusion of the recovered evidence would be unwarranted.