Page 47 - TPA Jourtnal September October 2023

justified when it begins; any subsequent actions expressly precluding the use of evidence obtained
must be “reasonably related in scope to the in violation of its commands,” courts have
circumstances that justified the stop.” A traffic stop established an exclusionary rule to safeguard the
is justified at its inception when an officer has “an Amendment’s protections that, “when applicable,
objectively reasonable suspicion that some sort of forbids the use of improperly obtained evidence at
illegal activity, such as a traffic violation, occurred, trial.”
or is about to occur, before stopping the vehicle.”
“[R]easonable suspicion exists when the officer can “The good faith exception provides that ‘evidence
point to specific and articulable facts which, taken obtained in objectively reasonable reliance on a
together with rational inferences from those facts, subsequently invalidated search warrant’ typically
reasonably warrant the search and seizure.” should not be excluded.” This exception also
Reasonable suspicion is a low threshold; it is not applies to arrest warrants. If a warrant is used in
probable cause. Certainly, then, if officers “have good faith, then it is not necessary to determine
probable cause to believe that a traffic violation has whether the warrant was supported with probable
occurred, then there is also reasonable suspicion to cause.
stop the vehicle.
One circumstance in which the good faith
The officers stated that Walker committed two exception applies is when police officers rely on
traffic violations — making an illegal U-turn and warrants that are later invalidated because of an
erratic driving. Walker responds by emphasizing administrative error. In Herring, an officer
that the bodycam video recorded Officer Foster discovered methamphetamine and an illegal
stating the turn “wasn’t an illegal U-turn.” At the firearm when arresting a defendant based on a
suppression hearing, Foster explained his statement warrant that had been recalled long before the
by saying “those words did come out of my arrest, which a recordkeeping error had left in the
mouth,” but that was because he thought the relevant database. The good faith exception
overall violation was erratic driving, not an illegal applied because the mistake that invalidated the
Uturn. The district court had an opportunity to warrant did not evince conduct that was “so
evaluate this testimony at the suppression hearing objectively culpable as to require exclusion.” The
and found the officers’ testimony regarding Court explained, “the exclusionary rule serves to
observed traffic violations credible. Walker has no deter deliberate, reckless, or grossly negligent
evidence that leaves us “with the definite and firm conduct, or in some circumstances recurring or
conviction that a mistake has been made” in the systemic negligence.”
district court’s credibility determination. Thus, we
cannot say the district court committed clear error Similarly, the good faith exception applied when a
when finding that the officers observed a traffic police officer discovered marijuana during an
violation. Having witnessed two traffic violations, arrest based on an invalid misdemeanor warrant
the officers had reasonable suspicion sufficient to that had appeared to be valid on his patrol-car
justify making a traffic stop. There was no error computer due to the court clerk’s administrative
when the district court concluded that the evidence error. The Court emphasized that the court clerk,
should not have been suppressed on this basis. not the officer, was responsible for the invalidating
mistake. “If it were indeed a court clerk who was
Walker also contends that the City of Houston responsible for the erroneous entry on the police
traffic warrants on which the officers relied as the computer, application of the exclusionary rule [ ]
basis of their arrest and subsequent search were could not be expected to alter the behavior of the
devoid of probable cause. The Fourth Amendment arresting officer”; thus, exclusion would be of no
protects “[t]he right of the people to be secure in deterrent value. The good faith exception applied
their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against both because it was the court employee’s error and
unreasonable searches and seizures.” Although the because there was “no indication that the arresting
Fourth Amendment “contains no provision officer was not acting objectively reasonably” in

Sept/Oct 2023 www.texaspoliceassociation.com • (512) 458-3140 40