§ 4.2.14 Good Faith
The fruits of a search must not be invalidated if the police acted in good faith in executing a warrant later determined to be invalid. See A.R.S. § 13-3925; United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984); State v. Coats, 165 Ariz. 154, 158-59, 797 P.2d 693, 697-98 (App. 1990) (Div. 1). See also State v. Peoples, 240 Ariz. 245, 378 P.3d 421 (2016) (“The exclusionary rule, which authorizes a court to suppress evidence gathered in violation of the Fourth Amendment, is a prudential doctrine used to discourage future violations . . . But when law enforcement officers act with objectively reasonable good faith belief that their conduct is lawful, deterrence is unnecessary and the exclusionary rule does not apply.”) (internal quotations omitted, citing Davis v. United States and United States v. Leon) (court in Peoples ruled that officer lacked objectively reasonable good faith belief that cell phone located next to victim’s dead body belonged to victim).
The State bears the burden of presenting sufficient evidence in the trial court to demonstrate good faith. State v. Crowley, 202 Ariz. 80, 90-91, 41 P.3d 618, 628-29 (App. 2001) (Div. 2) (State failed to present sufficient evidence to meet its burden of establishing good faith exception, where it “presented no evidence at suppression hearing and cited no legal authority in support of its argument”). A trial court’s determination that the officer lacked good faith is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. State v. Peoples, 240 Ariz. 245, 378 P.3d 421 (2016) (finding state did not meet burden of showing good faith exception existed).
The good-faith exception does not apply:
1) when a magistrate is misled by information that the affiant knew was false or would have known was false but for his or her reckless disregard for the truth; (2) when the issuing magistrate wholly abandons his or her judicial role; (3) when a warrant is based on an affidavit so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render official belief in its existence entirely unreasonable; and (4) when a warrant is so facially deficient that the executing officers cannot reasonably presume it to be valid.
State v. Hyde, 186 Ariz. 252, 273, 921 P.2d 655, 676 (1996) (quoting Leon, 468 U.S. at 923) (internal quotation marks and ellipsis omitted).
If officers had reason to know the warrant was defective, good faith would not apply. State v. Coats, 165 Ariz. 154, 797 P.2d 693 (App. 1990) (Div. 1). See also United States v. Crews, 502...
