AR: Warrantless entry under 12-year-old drug abatement search order never before challenged was in good faith, despite 4A violation

There was a drug abatement order from 2011 for an apartment area in Jonesboro, Arkansas. A sign warned of warrantless residential searches. The JPD street crimes unit saw several men standing outside defendant’s apartment. Marijuana could be smelled, and they searched defendant finding two Oxys. Two bottles of cough syrup and a blunt were seen by his residence door. They entered as well. Despite the entry violating the Fourth Amendment, the 12 years of the abatement order plus the call to the city attorney for guidance made the good faith exception apply. Thompson v. State, 2025 Ark. App. 558 (Nov. 19, 2025):

On October 4, 2023, Investigator Tanner Huff with Jonesboro Police Department’s Street Crimes Unit was in the Cedar Heights neighborhood and saw several males congregating outside of Thompson’s residence. Pursuant to the abatement order, Huff and other members of the crime unit chose to perform a search of both the individuals at the residence and the property itself. As Huff approached the property, he alleged that he could smell the distinctive odor of marijuana and that Thompson was in the process of exiting the front door of the residence. According to Huff’s bodycam video, Thompson was immediately searched, and two oxycodone pills were seized. Huff also saw two promethazine cough syrup bottles with torn labels—one with a usable amount—and a rolled marijuana “blunt” near the front door of the residence. Following a brief telephone call with the Jonesboro city attorney, Huff then entered the residence, pursuant to the ostensible authority given by the abatement order, and conducted a second search. The search yielded a .40-caliber Glock pistol that had been reported stolen, a scale with marijuana residue, eleven empty bottles of promethazine with the labels torn off, and a rolling tray. These items were found in and around the living room area of the residence; the firearm was found in a couch cushion in the living room.

. . .

In light of these facts, we agree with the circuit court that Huff acted in good faith in relying on the clear directives of the abatement order. As stated by the circuit court, “Huff did exactly what courts expect of him in any court order, and the thirteen (13) years between the filing of that order and October 4, 2023 must have given Huff great confidence in its validity.” We also agree that Huff’s good faith was illustrated by his call to the city attorney to obtain legal advice as to the abatement order’s scope before he executed a search of the residence. Furthermore, considering Huff’s testimony regarding his personal knowledge of the ongoing criminal activity in the Cedar Heights neighborhood; familiarity with Thompson; observation of what he believed to be a prior drug transaction at the residence; and the longstanding reliance of the Jonesboro Police Department on the abatement order, we cannot say that Huff violated Thompson’s Fourth Amendment rights deliberately, recklessly, or with gross negligence. Thus, applying Leon’s reasoning to the specific facts of this case, we affirm the circuit court’s denial of Thompson’s motion to suppress.

[What about the plainly incompetent standard of Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 341 (1986) (“As the qualified immunity defense has evolved, it provides ample protection to all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.”). Qualified immunity and the good faith exception apply the same standards.]