Monday, August 11, 2008

Issues: C

IV. Issues: C. Pennsylvania Authorities Acted in Good Faith in Relying upon Search Warrant

The Good Faith Exception to the exclusionary rule will apply and evidence will not be uppressed where it is shown that authorities reasonably relied in good faith upon a search warrant. The defense correctly sets forth the controlling analysis for the good faith exception where evidence will only be excluded where an officer’s reliance on a warrant is not reasonable. The unreasonable reliance situations are: (1) when the magistrate judge issued the warrant in reliance on a deliberately or recklessly false affidavit; (2) when the magistrate judge abandoned his judicial role and failed to perform his neutral and detached function; (3) when the warrant was based on an affidavit so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render official belief in its existence entirely unreasonable; or (4) when the warrant was so facially deficient that it failed to particularized the place to be searched or the things to be seized. U.S. v. Ninety-Two Thousand Four Hundred Twenty-Two Dollars and Fifty-Seven Cents 307 F.3d 137 (3d. Cir.1999).

The Commonwealth submits that Magistrate Tupper’s issuance of/Pennsylvania authorities’ reliance upon the search warrant for the party757 email account was reasonable based upon the arguments set forth in the statement of facts section above, therefore, even if the warrant was deemed to be invalid, the good faith exception would apply and the evidence is admissible.