Page 31 - TPA Journal September- October 2017
P. 31
holding that the good faith exception applies,
Jarman then conditionally pleaded guilty to challenging more than a dozen statements in
Count 1 of the indictment, reserving the right and omissions from the search-warrant
to appeal the denial of his motions to suppress affidavit for his home.2 The Government, on
the evidence found in the search of his home. the other hand, argues that the district court
We hold that the district court did not err in correctly held that the good faith exception
denying suppression of the evidence the applies because Jarman has not shown that
Government seized from Jarman’s home any statements in the affidavit were knowingly
because: (1) Jarman failed to carry his burden or recklessly false. Moreover, the Government
to show that the good faith exception does not asserts, Jarman has not identified any material
apply; and (2) Jarman was not entitled to omissions from the affidavit, let alone any
suppression based on the Government’s delay omissions constituting knowing or reckless
in completing its search of the evidence falsehoods.
because: (a) Jarman waived the claim that the
Government violated Rule 41; and (b) the The court then found that Jarman failed to
Government did not violate the Fourth satisfy the requirements for attacking the good
Amendment because it acted reasonably under faith exception because, it determined, the
the circumstances. Government and SA Tedder did not act in bad
faith and the statements and omissions that
The good faith exception bars the application Jarman calls material knowing or reckless
of the exclusionary rule to exclude evidence falsehoods and omissions were neither
obtained pursuant to a warrant if law deliberate nor made in reckless disregard for
enforcement officers act under an objectively the truth. After hearing oral argument and
reasonable, good faith belief that the search studying the briefs, applicable parts of the
warrant in question is valid—even if it, in fact, record, and the relevant law, we can find no
is not. But the good faith exception is not error in the district court’s application of the
applicable if “the issuing-judge was misled by good faith exception. We especially recognize
information in an affidavit that the affiant knew that the district court had the opportunity to
was false or would have known was false observe witnesses. Furthermore, evidence
except for his reckless disregard of the truth.” must be “viewed in the light most favorable to
“[T]he initial burden here is upon the the” Government. We thus uphold the
defendant.” Here, in attempting to impeach application of the good faith exception to any
the warrant, the defendant must establish: (1) defects alleged by Jarman.
“a knowing or reckless falsehood” by omission
or commission; (2) “that without the falsehood We now turn to Jarman’s contention that the
there would not be sufficient matter in the district court erred by rejecting his argument
affidavit to support the issuance of the that the duration of the Government’s post-
warrant”; and that (3) “[t]he omitted material seizure review of his computer data requires
[is] . . . dispositive, so that if the omitted fact the suppression of the seized evidence.
were included, there would not be probable
cause.” “The general touchstone of reasonableness
which governs [the] Fourth Amendment
Jarman avers that the district court erred in analysis . . . governs the method of execution
Sept./Oct. 2017 www.texaspoliceassociation.com • 866-997-8282 25
