Probable Cause and Good Faith Exception

State police obtained a warrant to search Defendant's house for marijuana. The facts are as follows (excerpted and edited from a case):

On March 7, 1994, a detective applied for a search warrant to search the home of the defendant. On that day, the detective had received a telephone call from an individual who stated that he or she had observed marijuana in the defendant's home. The affidavit submitted by the detective stated:

The magistrate approved the application, and the search resulted in the discovery of contraband. Defendant moved to suppress the evidence obtained under the search warrant.

(A)Did probable cause exist to issue the search warrant?
(B)In the alternative, would these facts satisfy the good faith exception established in United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984)?
 

Submitted By Tammi Jelovchan

Emory University School of  Law

Answer

(A)
Confidential informers are a great source of exam questions as well as information.  The court bases its decision as to the sufficiency of the information on the totality of the circumstances.  There must be corroboration of facts or some other way to determine the veracity of the informants statements.  The informant must state some basis for their knowledge and also verify there credibility in some way.
(B)
If the police reasonably but wrongly believe that the warrant which they have been issued is valid, the exclusionary rule will not apply to suppress the evidence at trial under the good faith exception.  The good faith exception does not apply when (1) warrant is based on affidavit containing knowing or reckless falsehoods (2) magistrate acts as a rubber stamp for the police (3) affidavit does provide magistrate with sufficient information to determine existence of probable cause (4) warrant so facially deficient, officer cannot rely on it

See United States v. Wilhelm, 80 F.3d 116 (4^th Cir. 1996) (holding that search warrant not supported by probable cause and good faith exception did not apply).