Page 33 - TPA Journal July August 2017
P. 33
Jarman avers that the district court erred in the suppression of the seized evidence.
holding that the good faith exception applies,
challenging more than a dozen statements in “The general touchstone of reasonableness
and omissions from the search-warrant affi- which governs [the] Fourth Amendment analy-
davit for his home.2 The Government, on the sis . . . governs the method of execution of the
other hand, argues that the district court cor- warrant.” As “many circuits have recognized,”
rectly held that the good faith exception the Fourth Amendment “contain[s no] require-
applies because Jarman has not shown that any ments about when the search or seizure is to
statements in the affidavit were knowingly or occur or the duration.” Courts have therefore
recklessly false. Moreover, the Government consistently “permitted some delay in the exe-
asserts, Jarman has not identified any material cution of search warrants involving computers
omissions from the affidavit, let alone any because of the complexity of the search” and
omissions constituting knowing or reckless they often restrict their “analysis of the delay in
falsehoods. executing . . . warrants [to] consider[ing] only
whether the delay rendered the warrants stale.”
The court then found that Jarman failed to sat-
isfy the requirements for attacking the good Jarman contends that the district court erred by
faith exception because, it determined, the not granting suppression because the
Government and SA Tedder did not act in bad Government violated the Fourth Amendment
faith and the statements and omissions that and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41 by
Jarman calls material knowing or reckless taking twenty-three months to finish searching
falsehoods and omissions were neither deliber- the data it seized. His overarching argument is
ate nor made in reckless disregard for the truth. that this delay was unreasonable.
After hearing oral argument and studying the
briefs, applicable parts of the record, and the The Government counters that Jarman is not
relevant law, we can find no error in the district entitled to suppression on this basis. Jarman,
court’s application of the good faith exception. the Government asserts, waived the claim that
We especially recognize that the district court its actions violated Rule 41. Moreover, the
had the opportunity to observe witnesses. Government argues, it acted reasonably under
Furthermore, evidence must be “viewed in the the circumstances, and the only case Jarman
light most favorable to the” Government. We relies upon is distinguishable.
thus uphold the application of the good faith
exception to any defects alleged by Jarman. We hold that the district court did not err by
not granting suppression based on the duration
We now turn to Jarman’s contention that the of the Government’s post-seizure review of the
district court erred by rejecting his argument data it seized from Jarman’s home. First, Jarman
that the duration of the Government’s post- waived the claim that the Government’s
seizure review of his computer data requires actions violated Rule 41…
July - August 2017 www.texaspoliceassociation.com • 866-997-8282 29
