6.1

• Jurisdiction: Arizona

§ 6.10 Good Faith

“The exclusionary rule, which authorizes a court to suppress evidence gathered in violation of the Fourth Amendment, is a prudential doctrine used to discourage future violations . . . But when law enforcement officers act with objectively reasonable good faith belief that their conduct is lawful, deterrence is unnecessary and the exclusionary rule does not apply.” State v. Peoples, 240 Ariz. 245, 378 P.3d 421 (2016) (internal quotations omitted) (officer lacked objectively reasonable good faith belief that cell phone located next to victim’s dead body belonged to victim). See also A.R.S. § 13-3925 (“The trial court shall not suppress evidence that is otherwise admissible in a criminal proceeding if the court determines that the evidence was seized by a peace officer as a result or a good faith mistake or technical violation”; statute also discusses what constitutes “good faith mistake” or “technical violation”). The government must demonstrate the existence of good faith. United States v. Camou, 773 F.3d 932, 944 (9th Cir. 2014) (government has burden to show it acted in good faith).

6.10.1 Good Faith Execution of Warrant. See also “Good Faith” in Warrants, Ch. 4.

If a warrant is later deemed invalid, the exclusionary rule does not apply if officers executed the warrant in good faith. See United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) (suppression not warranted if warrant later found to lack probable cause was executed in good faith); Utah v. Strieff, 136 S. Ct. 2056 (2016) (officer’s discovery of valid, preexisting arrest warrant for a minor traffic violation attenuated connection between unlawful investigatory stop and drug-related evidence seized from defendant’s pocket during search incident to arrest); Herring v. United States, 129 S. Ct. 695 (2009) (good faith applied where a police officer arrests someone based on information from a different law enforcement agency that an outstanding warrant exists, which was incorrect because of a negligent error by that agency in failing to remove the warrant from its files; “[t]o 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”; thus, “the exclusionary rule serves to deter deliberate, reckless, or grossly negligent conduct, or in some circumstances recurring or systemic negligence,” but does not require suppression of evidence in a case where the officer’s error “was the result of isolated negligence attenuated from the arrest”); Hudson v. Michigan, 126 S. Ct. 2159 (2006) (violation of knock & announce rule does not justify suppression of evidence seized as a result of an otherwise valid warrant); Messerschmidt v. Millender, 132 S. Ct. 1235 (2012) (officers were entitled to qualified immunity in a § 1983 civil suit; Court concluded that the affidavit supporting the warrant was not so lacking in probable cause that the officers could be deemed plainly incompetent for concluding otherwise; it will be rare when a magistrate so obviously errs in determining there is probable cause to support a warrant that any reasonable officer would recognize the error; this case also reaffirmed that the test for the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule is the same as the test for qualified immunity); United States v. Elmore, 917 F.3d 1068 (9th Cir. 2019) (search warrant for CSLI information was not supported by probable cause, but warrant was executed in good faith).

The Supreme Court has recognized that officers who obtain search warrants from judges...