Page 32 - TPA Journal July August 2017
P. 32
attempted receipt of child pornography to appeal the denial of his motions to suppress
(“Count 1”). the evidence found in the search of his home.
Jarman moved to suppress the fruits of the We hold that the district court did not err in
search of his home and for a Franks hearing, denying suppression of the evidence the
arguing that SA Tedder’s affidavit did not estab- Government seized from Jarman’s home
lish probable cause, omitted material informa- because: (1) Jarman failed to carry his burden
tion, and contained misrepresentations and to show that the good faith exception does not
unreliable information. The district court held a apply; and (2) Jarman was not entitled to sup-
Franks hearing in April 2014. Jarman then pression based on the Government’s delay in
sought, and was granted, additional discovery completing its search of the evidence because:
because, the court found, there were material (a) Jarman waived the claim that the
inconsistencies between SA Tedder’s testimony Government violated Rule 41; and (b) the
and his draft affidavits. Government did not violate the Fourth
Amendment because it acted reasonably under
In October 2014, the district court denied the circumstances.
Jarman’s motion to suppress. Because of the
effect of the passage of time on one’s memory, The good faith exception bars the application
the court found, SA Tedder’s incorrect state- of the exclusionary rule to exclude evidence
ments at the Franks hearing were not deliber- obtained pursuant to a warrant if law enforce-
ate. Moreover, the Government’s actions did ment officers act under an objectively reason-
not give rise to a reckless disregard for the able, good faith belief that the search warrant
truth. Consequently, the court held that, in question is valid—even if it, in fact, is not.
although the “investigation may have been less But the good faith exception is not applicable
than ideal,” “the good faith exception [to the if “the issuing-judge was misled by information
exclusionary rule] applies.” in an affidavit that the affiant knew was false or
would have known was false except for his
Jarman promptly moved for reconsideration. reckless disregard of the truth.” “[T]he initial
The court denied the motion for reconsidera- burden here is upon the defendant.” Here, in
tion on the ground that the good faith excep- attempting to impeach the warrant, the defen-
tion still applied. Although it “remain[ed] dant must establish: (1) “a knowing or reckless
uncomfortable with the [G]overnment’s con- falsehood” by omission or commission; (2)
duct,” the court still did “not believe that “that without the falsehood there would not be
Jarman ha[d] established that [SA] Tedder’s sufficient matter in the affidavit to support the
conduct was in bad faith.” issuance of the warrant”; and that (3) “[t]he
omitted material [is] . . . dispositive, so that if
Jarman then conditionally pleaded guilty to the omitted fact were included, there would
Count 1 of the indictment, reserving the right not be probable cause.”
28 www.texaspoliceassociation.com • 866-997-8282 Texas Police Journal
