Page 30 - July August 2020 TPA Journal

other technical defect, does not invalidate an establish Officer Garcia’s good faith.
otherwise valid warrant. It further asserted that
On direct appeal, the court of appeals upheld
Officer Garcia’s sworn affidavit that was
the trial court’s suppression ruling. The court
admitted into evidence was sufficient to show
of appeals agreed that the illegible
that he acted in good-faith reliance on the
magistrate’s signature rendered the warrant
warrant. Because there was no evidence
facially invalid under Article 18.04, and
presented that Officer Garcia did not act in
therefore, the good-faith exception in Article
good faith, that the magistrate was not neutral,
38.23(b) could not apply as a matter of law.
or that the magistrate did not issue the warrant
The court of appeals also rejected the State’s
based on probable cause, the State concluded
argument that the trial court had erred by
that under the statutory good-faith exception,
declining to consider its documentary
the evidence was not subject to suppression.
evidence attached to its post-suppression-
[The identity of the Magistrate was hearing brief, including Officer Garcia’s
established by the officer’s affidavit.] affidavit. It reasoned that the evidence was
immaterial given the warrant’s facial
The trial court granted Appellee’s motion to
invalidity, and moreover, the trial court had
suppress. In its written findings of fact and
discretion to decline to consider this evidence.
conclusions of law, the trial court determined
that the magistrate’s signature “was not in We granted the State Prosecuting Attorney’s
legible handwriting, nor was it accompanied petition for discretionary review on four
by any name identifying the magistrate in grounds to determine whether the court of
either clearly legible handwriting or in appeals erred by upholding the trial court’s
typewritten form.” Thus, the court concluded suppression ruling.
that the warrant was facially invalid in light of
The issue we must decide is whether the
its failure to comply with Article 18.04(5).
magistrate’s illegible signature on the search
Given the warrant’s facial invalidity, the court
warrant rendered the warrant facially invalid
further concluded that the statutory good-faith
and thereby prohibited application of the
exception could not apply because “in order to
rely on the ‘good faith exception’ to the statutory good-faith exception. See TEX.CODE
CRIM. PROC. art. 18.04(5); art. 38.23(b).
exclusionary rule . . . an officer must rely on a
While we agree with the court of appeals that
facially valid warrant.” Alternatively, it
pursuant to Code of Criminal Procedure
reasoned that even assuming the good-faith
Article 18.04(5), a search warrant lacking a
exception could apply, there was no evidence
legible magistrate’s signature is defective, we
to show that Officer Garcia objectively relied
further conclude that even with such a defect,
in good faith on the warrant. With regard to
a warrant is still a warrant for purposes of
Officer Garcia’s affidavit attached to the
Article 38.23(b). Thus, the good-faith
State’s post-hearing brief, the trial court
exception will nevertheless apply when the
indicated that it had discretion to ignore that
record establishes that the officer was acting
evidence, but at the same time stated that it
in objective good-faith reliance upon a
believed the affidavit was inadequate to
warrant based upon a neutral magistrate’s

26 www.texaspoliceassociation.com • (512) 458-3140 Texas Police Journal