Beyond the Four Corners: Objective Good Faith Analysis or Subjective Erosion of Fourth Amendment Protections? - Pamela L. Coleman

• Publication year: 2003

Casenote

Beyond the Four Corners: Objective Good Faith Analysis or Subjective Erosion of Fourth Amendment Protections?

On July 18, 2002, the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit decided, as a matter of first impression, that a court may consider facts known only to an officer, not contained within an affidavit and warrant, in determining whether the officer exhibited objective, reasonable reliance upon an invalid warrant.¹ In United States v. Martin,² the court joined a majority of circuits now looking beyond the four corners of the affidavit and warrant and relying on the subjective knowledge of the officer, a tenet specifically denounced by the Supreme Court in United States v. Leon,³ to ascertain the applicability of the Leon good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule.⁴

I. Factual Background

On May 15, 2000, Atlanta Homicide Detective Brett Zimbrick, members of the Atlanta Police Gun Unit, and an agent of the Bureau of

Tobacco, Alcohol, and Firearms entered the apartment where Corey Martin resided. In the bedroom rented by Martin, the officers discovered a Taurus .38 caliber pistol and what appeared to be marijuana and crack cocaine. Martin was arrested and subsequently charged with violating 18 U.S.C. Sec. 922(g) and 924(e),⁵ possession by a felon of a firearm and ammunition.⁶

The search of Martin's residence resulted from information acquired from Troy Terry, referenced in the affidavit and search warrant presented by Officer Zimbrick to Atlanta Municipal Court Judge Andrew Mickle.⁷ The affidavit stated:

On 5/15/00 Troy Terry initiated contact with the Atlanta Police Department and confessed to several crimes that took place outside the City of Atlanta. While taking a taped statement, the suspect admits to taking several weapons from a home in North Carolina and subsequently selling the weapons to the occupants of the listed apartment. Troy Terry directed the Atlanta Police to the specific apartment and personally pointed out the apartment in the presence of the Atlanta Police. It is believed that the weapons that have been verified as stolen out of North Carolina were in fact sold and presently are in the listed apartment.⁸

Claiming the issuance of the search warrant was without probable cause, Martin filed a motion to suppress the weapon and cocaine. The federal magistrate judge determined the warrant lacked probable cause and the affidavit failed to support a Leon⁹ good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule. In response to the government's request, the judge held an evidentiary hearing on March 13, 2001.¹⁰

At the hearing, Zimbrick testified to specific details obtained from Terry indicating that stolen weapons Terry used to commit murders in North Carolina were located in the apartment in which Martin resided.¹¹ These details were not contained in the affidavit. Zimbrick further testified that within twelve to fourteen hours of interviewing Terry, Zimbrick requested Judge Mickle's approval of a search warrant for the apartment and GMC truck, seeking four handguns and a VCR. Zimbrick testified that he told the judge of Terry's confessions to two murders and to burglaries along the East Coast from which Terry had obtained guns to sell for crack and money, that Zimbrick believed Terry sold the guns immediately before his arrest, and that Terry had been under arrest for only a few days. Judge Mickle then issued the warrant. Judge Mickle testified he could not recall whether Officer Zimbrick related information to him not stated in the affidavit.¹²

The magistrate judge concluded that Zimbrick's knowledge ofthe facts, though not contained in the affidavit to support the warrant, could be considered to determine whether the good-faith exception of Leon was applicable. He further concluded that Zimbrick believed in good faith that the warrant was supported by probable cause. Therefore, the district court found that although the warrant lacked probable cause, the Leon good-faith exception applied, and the court upheld the search.¹³

Martin appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, arguing that the district court improperly denied his motion to sup-press.¹⁴ Specifically, Martin contended that "the magistrate judge should not have considered the facts known to the affiant but outside the four corners of the affidavit in order to determine whether the Leon good-faith exception applied to this case."¹⁵ The district court, in considering information not contained in the four corners of the search warrant, raised an issue of first impression for the Eleventh Circuit: "[I]n deciding whether the Leon good faith exception applies, may the reviewing court consider facts known to the affiant, but not contained on the face of the affidavit and underlying search warrant?"¹⁶ The circuit court summarily held, "[A] reviewing court may look outside the four corners of the affidavit in determining whether an officer acted in good faith when relying upon an invalid warrant."¹⁷ The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the lower court's decision to apply the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule and upheld the court's denial of Martin's motion to suppress.¹⁸

II. Legal Background

In United States v. Leon,¹⁹ the Supreme Court crafted an exception to the well-established exclusionary rule, a rule by which evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment is inadmissible in a federal or state court.²⁰ Primarily focusing on the purpose of the exclusionary rule as deterrence to unlawful police conduct, the Court held that when an officer relies in good faith on a magistrate's finding of probable cause, the evidence obtained via the warrant will not be excluded though the warrant is subsequently found invalid.²¹

In Leon the affidavit forming the basis of the search warrant on the residence of Alberto Leon failed to establish the informant's reliability or to provide the basis for the informant's allegations of Leon's criminal activity. Because of the deficiency in the warrant, Leon moved to suppress the evidence found at his residence and on his person. Following an evidentiary hearing, the district court found the affidavit defective in establishing probable cause. The court thus granted Leon's motion to suppress and denied the government's argument that the officer's good-faith reliance on the validity of the search warrant rendered the exclusionary rule inapplicable. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit agreed.²²

The Supreme Court of the United States, however, in weighing the social costs of excluding inherently truthful evidence against the tremendous benefit conferred upon the guilty, concluded that modifying the exclusionary rule to provide a good-faith exception neither defenestrated the rule nor compromised its purpose.²³ Characterizing the exclusionary rule as a "'judicially created remedy designed to safeguard Fourth Amendment rights generally through its deterrent effect, rather than a personal constitutional right of the party aggrieved,'"²⁴ Justice White, writing for the majority, flatly stated, "[S]uppression of evidence obtained pursuant to a warrant should be ordered only on a case-by-case basis and only in those unusual cases in which exclusion will further the [deterrent] purpose of the exclusionary rule."²⁵

The Court further instructed that all circumstances may be considered in determining whether an officer manifested objective, reasonable reliance on a subsequently invalidated warrant.²⁶ The Court clearly enunciated, however, the objective criteria intended as a basis for the "all circumstances" inquiry and did not obscure its denunciation of incorporating the subjective beliefs of the officers into the analysis:²⁷

[We] eschew inquiries into the subjective beliefs of law enforcement officers who seize evidence pursuant to a subsequently invalidated warrant .... Accordingly, our good-faith inquiry is confined to the objectively ascertainable question whether a reasonably well trained officer would have known that the search was illegal despite the magistrate's authorization. In making this determination, all of the circumstances—including whether the warrant application had previously been rejected by a different magistrate—may be considered.²⁸

Purposely, the Court accentuated its adoption of an objective standard of reasonableness.²⁹ Though providing an exception to the applicability of the exclusionary rule, the Court emphasized that objective reasonableness would preserve the effectiveness of the rule.³⁰ Explicitly, the Court discounted a subjective analysis:

Many objections to a good-faith exception assume that the exception will turn on the subjective good faith of individual officers. "Grounding the modification in objective reasonableness, however, retains the value of the exclusionary rule as an incentive for the law enforcement profession as a whole to conduct themselves in accord with the Fourth Amendment."³¹

Adopting an objective standard, articulated the Court, sustains the requirement that officers possess reasonable knowledge of the law's prohibitions, thus preserving and furthering the deterrent purpose of the exclusionary rule.³²

Therefore, the objective standard is framed by the officer's knowledge and understanding of the requirements of the Fourth Amendment. That knowledge would equip the officer with the means of determining whether a warrant is violative of the Fourth Amendment despite the magistrate's authorization. Objective good faith, then, rests on a foundation of Fourth Amendment compliance, not individualized, subjective knowledge of facts known only to the officer.

A. Evolution of "All Circumstances" in the Eleventh Circuit

Numerous cases reveal the evolution of the "all circumstances" standard within the Eleventh Circuit. Six months after Leon, the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit applied the Leon good-faith ruling and remanded United States v. Accardo³³ for consideration in light of that exception.³⁴ In Accardo, a case...