CA5: GFE first (was reliance objectively reasonable), PC second

“Warrants are reviewed under a two-part test. In the first step, we determine whether the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies. Under that exception, ‘evidence obtained from [a] search will not be excluded’ even if ‘probable cause for a search warrant is founded on incorrect information,’ so long as ‘the officer’s reliance upon the information’s truth was objectively reasonable.’ United States v. Cavazos, 288 F.3d 706, 709 (5th Cir. 2004) (citations omitted). [¶] We move to the second step only if the good-faith exception is inapplicable. There, we address ‘whether the magistrate had a substantial basis for finding probable cause.’ Id. ‘Probable cause does not require proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but only a showing of the probability of criminal activity.’ United States v. Froman, 355 F.3d 882, 889 (5th Cir. 2004) (quotation omitted).” United States v. Devaney, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 17937 (5th Cir. July 22, 2024). [So, doesn’t the first question answer the second?]

The traffic stop was justified and the pipe was in plain view. Ferrell v. State, 2024 Fla. App. LEXIS 5673 (Fla. 2d DCA July 19, 2024).*

Two officers stopped plaintiff sitting in his car in his driveway because of a nearby stabbing. He stated a claim for his seizure and detention because the officers had nothing to connect him to the stabbing. Milla v. Brown, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 17790 (4th Cir. July 19, 2024).*

This entry was posted in Plain view, feel, smell, Probable cause, Reasonable suspicion. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.