Page 45 - March April 2021 TPA Journal
P. 45
executing their duties are more or less ambiguous, determining that probable cause existed to extend
[and] room must be allowed for some mistakes on the search to the photographs on the cellphones.
their part. But the mistakes must be those of Even if the warrants provided probable cause to
reasonable men, acting on facts leading sensibly to search some of the phones’ “drawers” or “file
their conclusions of probability.” And further, cabinets,” the photographs “file cabinet” could not
“[m]ere affirmance of belief or suspicion is not be searched because the information in the
enough.” The facts here lead to the sensible officer’s affidavits supporting a search of the
conclusion that Morton was a consumer of drugs; cellphones only related to drug trafficking, not
the facts do not lead to a sensible conclusion that simple possession of drugs. There was thus no
Morton was a drug dealer. substantial basis for the magistrate’s conclusion
Under these facts, reasonably well-trained that probable cause existed to search Morton’s
officers would have been aware that searching the photographs, and the search is not saved by the
digital images on Morton’s phone—allegedly for magistrate’s authority. The search was
drug trafficking-related evidence—was unconstitutional, not subject to any exceptions,
unsupported by probable cause, despite the and the evidence must be suppressed as
magistrate’s approval. Consequently, the search inadmissible.
here does not receive the protection of the good Today, we have held that a reasonably well-
faith exception to the exclusionary rule. trained officer would have known that probable
However, the good faith exception, applicable cause was lacking to search the photographs
to the officers, does not end our analysis. As we stored on the defendant’s cellphones for evidence
have said, if the good faith exception does not related to drug possession, which was the only
save the search, we move to a second step: crime supporting a search. Moreover, we have
whether the magistrate who issued the warrant had held that any additional assertions in the affidavits
a “substantial basis” for determining that probable were too minimal and generalized to provide
cause to search the cellphones existed. While the probable cause for the magistrate to authorize the
good faith analysis focuses on what an objectively search of the photographs. Because the officers’
reasonable police officer would have known to be search of the stored photographs pursuant to the
permissible, this second step focuses on the first warrants was impermissible, obviously the
magistrate’s decision. The magistrate is permitted use of that information—which was the evidence
to draw reasonable inferences from the material asserted to secure the second set of warrants—
he receives, and his determination of probable tainted the evidence obtained as a result of that
cause is entitled to “great deference” by the second search, making it the unconstitutional
reviewing court in all “doubtful or marginal “fruit of the poisonous tree.” Therefore, the
cases.” At the same time, “a reviewing court may evidence obtained as a result of the second set of
properly conclude that, notwithstanding the warrants is inadmissible.
deference that magistrates deserve, the warrant
was invalid because the magistrate’s probable- REVERSED, VACATED, and REMANDED.
cause determination reflected an improper
analysis.” U.S. v. Morton, No. 19-10842, 5th Cir., Jan.
Here, even giving the magistrate’s 05, 2021.
determination the deference due, we hold that the
magistrate did not have a substantial basis for
March/April 2021 www.texaspoliceassociation.com • (512) 458-3140 41
