C. GOOD FAITH EXCEPTION
The Supreme Court of Virginia embraces the “good faith” exception to the exclusionary rule. McCary v. Commonwealth, 228 Va. 219, 321 S.E.2d 637 (1984).
In Anzualda v. Commonwealth, 44 Va. App. 764, 607 S.E. 2d 749, 2005 Va. App. LEXIS 88 (2005) the Trial court did not err in denying defendant’s motion to suppress evidence seized as a result of a search warrant, where despite the fact that the affidavit supporting the same failed to provide the issuing magistrate with a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause to search defendant’s home existed to issue said warrant, officers possessed an objectively reasonable belief in the existence of probable cause, namely, that the fruits of criminal activity would probable be found at defendant’s residence, for the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule to apply. Anzualda v. Commonwealth, 44 Va. App. 764, 607 S.E. 2d 749, 2005 Va. App. LEXIS 88 (2005).
The Anzualda court noted that because deterrent effect of exclusionary rule is absent where officer, acting in objective good faith, obtains search warrant from magistrate and acts within scope of warrant, evidence seized pursuant to invalid search warrant is nevertheless admissible if officer executing warrant reasonably believed that warrant was valid. Under good faith exception, if police officer has objectively reasonable belief that issuing magistrate had probable cause to issue search warrant, officer may rely upon magistrate’s probable cause determination and evidence will not be excluded, even though affidavit may not have provided that magistrate with probable cause to issue warrant. There are four recognized situations in which good faith exception will not be applied to admit evidence seized pursuant to search which was based on invalid search warrant: (1) magistrate was misled by information in affidavit which affiant knew or should have known was false; (2) Issuing magistrate totally abandoned his judicial role; (3) warrant was based on affidavit so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render official belief in its existence unreasonable; or (4) warrant was so facially deficient that executing officer could not reasonably have assumed it valid. Absence of “substantial basis” for determining probable cause to issue search warrant does not necessarily mean that affidavit was so entirely lacking in indicia of probable cause that police officer could not have harbored objectively reasonable belief in validity of warrant. In other words, “no substantial basis” does not automatically equate to “no indicia of probable cause” Third exception to good-faith rule prevents finding of objective faith to rely on invalid search warrant only when officer’s affidavit is so lacking in indicia of probable cause to render official belief in its existence entirely unreasonable. This is less demanding showing than “substantial basis” threshold required to prove existence of probable cause in first place. It is entirely possible that search warrant affidavit could be insufficient for probable cause, but sufficient for officer’s good faith reliance, so as to support admission of evidence seized during search. If there are some indicia of probable cause in underlying search warrant affidavit, court will apply good faith exception as long as reasonable police officer, after assessing facts set forth in affidavit, could have believed that warrant was valid In ordinary case, officer conducting search pursuant to warrant cannot be expected to question magistrate’s probable cause determination or his judgment that form of warrant is technically sufficient. Magistrate lacked substantial basis for finding that facts set forth in affidavit established probable cause to issue search warrant, but affidavit established probable cause to issue search warrant, but affidavit contained some indieia of probable cause, and thus good faith exception applied.
In Polston v. Commonwealth, 255 Va. 500, 498 S.E.2d 924. (1998), the court noted that the Exclusionary rule is designed to deter police misconduct. This deterrent is not applicable when police officer, acting in good faith, obtains search warrant from magistrate and conducts search within scope of warrant. The Good Faith exception to exclusionary rule has been adopted in Virginia. Suppression remains an appropriate remedy if magistrate or judge issuing warrant was misled by information in affidavit that affiant knew was false or would have known was false except for his reckless disregard of truth or where issuing magistrate wholly abandoned his judicial role. Nor would officer manifest objective good faith in relying on warrant based on affidavit so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render official belief in its existence entirely unreasonable. Depending on circumstances of particular ease, warrant may be so facially deficient — i.e., in failing to particularize place to be searched or things to be seized — that executing officers cannot reasonably presume it to be valid. Regardless of actual validity of search warrant, evidence seized during search of defendant’s apartment was admissible under good faith exception to exclusionary rule.
In Adams v. Commonwealth, 48 Va. App. 737, 635, S.E.2d 20. (2006) the court noted that when officers rely in good faith upon a search warrant subsequently quashed for lack of probable cause, suppressing the evidence will have no deterrent effect. Under the good faith exception to exclusionary rule, the evidence seized pursuant to a search warrant, not issued on probable cause, is admissible if the officer executing the warrant reasonably believed that the warrant was valid. Where a reasonable police officer has a objectively reasonable belief that the issuing magistrate had probable cause to issue the search warrant, the officer may rely upon the magistrate’s probable cause determination and the evidence will not be excluded, even though the affidavit may not have provided magistrate, in fact, with probable cause to issue the warrant. A Deficient affidavit underlying the search warrant for a residence, when read in conjunction with criminal complaint, sufficiently linked the defendant to the residence to establish probable cause to issue the search warrant. Therefore, the officer’s reliance on the warrant was reasonable as to implicate the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule.
An affidavit in support of a search warrant that is deficient on its face may, under appropriate circumstance, be rehabilitated with facts not included in the affidavit if the evidence established that the omitted facts were actually disclosed to the magistrate under oath or affirmation. Obviously, a deficient affidavit in support of a search warrant cannot be cured by officer’s later testimony on his subjective intentions or knowledge. A deficient affidavit underlying the search warrant for residence, when read in conjunction with the criminal complaint, sufficiently linked the defendant to the residence to establish probable cause to issue the search warrant. Therefore, the officer’s reliance on the warrant was reasonable as to implicate the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule.
In Derr v. Commonwealth, 242 Va. 413, 410 S 662. (1991), the court held that the Fourth Amendment does not require that the sworn statement upon which the magistrate relies in determining probable cause be reduced to writing. An insufficient affidavit may be supplemented or rehabilitated by information disclosed to the issuing magistrate upon the application for the search warrant. Code Sec. 19.2-54 permits the magistrate to consider both the affidavit and the police officer’s verbal explanation that he did not have personal knowledge of the facts contained in the affidavit but had received the information from other officers. The affidavit may be supplemented or rehabilitated with additional affidavits which contain collective facts relevant to the same offenses when those affidavits are presented simultaneously to the issuing magistrate by the same officer. The magistrate did not violate Code Sec. 19.2-54 when she considered search. Courts should not invalidate warrants by interpreting affidavits in hyper-technical, rather than commonsense manner.
The Commonwealth submits that the search warrant for 1028 Stratem Court is valid, and even if there were some technical defect, the good faith exception would still permit the introduction of evidence seized from the vehicle.
The Supreme Court of Virginia embraces the “good faith” exception to the exclusionary rule. McCary v. Commonwealth, 228 Va. 219, 321 S.E.2d 637 (1984).
In Anzualda v. Commonwealth, 44 Va. App. 764, 607 S.E. 2d 749, 2005 Va. App. LEXIS 88 (2005) the Trial court did not err in denying defendant’s motion to suppress evidence seized as a result of a search warrant, where despite the fact that the affidavit supporting the same failed to provide the issuing magistrate with a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause to search defendant’s home existed to issue said warrant, officers possessed an objectively reasonable belief in the existence of probable cause, namely, that the fruits of criminal activity would probable be found at defendant’s residence, for the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule to apply. Anzualda v. Commonwealth, 44 Va. App. 764, 607 S.E. 2d 749, 2005 Va. App. LEXIS 88 (2005).
The Anzualda court noted that because deterrent effect of exclusionary rule is absent where officer, acting in objective good faith, obtains search warrant from magistrate and acts within scope of warrant, evidence seized pursuant to invalid search warrant is nevertheless admissible if officer executing warrant reasonably believed that warrant was valid. Under good faith exception, if police officer has objectively reasonable belief that issuing magistrate had probable cause to issue search warrant, officer may rely upon magistrate’s probable cause determination and evidence will not be excluded, even though affidavit may not have provided that magistrate with probable cause to issue warrant. There are four recognized situations in which good faith exception will not be applied to admit evidence seized pursuant to search which was based on invalid search warrant: (1) magistrate was misled by information in affidavit which affiant knew or should have known was false; (2) Issuing magistrate totally abandoned his judicial role; (3) warrant was based on affidavit so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render official belief in its existence unreasonable; or (4) warrant was so facially deficient that executing officer could not reasonably have assumed it valid. Absence of “substantial basis” for determining probable cause to issue search warrant does not necessarily mean that affidavit was so entirely lacking in indicia of probable cause that police officer could not have harbored objectively reasonable belief in validity of warrant. In other words, “no substantial basis” does not automatically equate to “no indicia of probable cause” Third exception to good-faith rule prevents finding of objective faith to rely on invalid search warrant only when officer’s affidavit is so lacking in indicia of probable cause to render official belief in its existence entirely unreasonable. This is less demanding showing than “substantial basis” threshold required to prove existence of probable cause in first place. It is entirely possible that search warrant affidavit could be insufficient for probable cause, but sufficient for officer’s good faith reliance, so as to support admission of evidence seized during search. If there are some indicia of probable cause in underlying search warrant affidavit, court will apply good faith exception as long as reasonable police officer, after assessing facts set forth in affidavit, could have believed that warrant was valid In ordinary case, officer conducting search pursuant to warrant cannot be expected to question magistrate’s probable cause determination or his judgment that form of warrant is technically sufficient. Magistrate lacked substantial basis for finding that facts set forth in affidavit established probable cause to issue search warrant, but affidavit established probable cause to issue search warrant, but affidavit contained some indieia of probable cause, and thus good faith exception applied.
In Polston v. Commonwealth, 255 Va. 500, 498 S.E.2d 924. (1998), the court noted that the Exclusionary rule is designed to deter police misconduct. This deterrent is not applicable when police officer, acting in good faith, obtains search warrant from magistrate and conducts search within scope of warrant. The Good Faith exception to exclusionary rule has been adopted in Virginia. Suppression remains an appropriate remedy if magistrate or judge issuing warrant was misled by information in affidavit that affiant knew was false or would have known was false except for his reckless disregard of truth or where issuing magistrate wholly abandoned his judicial role. Nor would officer manifest objective good faith in relying on warrant based on affidavit so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render official belief in its existence entirely unreasonable. Depending on circumstances of particular ease, warrant may be so facially deficient — i.e., in failing to particularize place to be searched or things to be seized — that executing officers cannot reasonably presume it to be valid. Regardless of actual validity of search warrant, evidence seized during search of defendant’s apartment was admissible under good faith exception to exclusionary rule.
In Adams v. Commonwealth, 48 Va. App. 737, 635, S.E.2d 20. (2006) the court noted that when officers rely in good faith upon a search warrant subsequently quashed for lack of probable cause, suppressing the evidence will have no deterrent effect. Under the good faith exception to exclusionary rule, the evidence seized pursuant to a search warrant, not issued on probable cause, is admissible if the officer executing the warrant reasonably believed that the warrant was valid. Where a reasonable police officer has a objectively reasonable belief that the issuing magistrate had probable cause to issue the search warrant, the officer may rely upon the magistrate’s probable cause determination and the evidence will not be excluded, even though the affidavit may not have provided magistrate, in fact, with probable cause to issue the warrant. A Deficient affidavit underlying the search warrant for a residence, when read in conjunction with criminal complaint, sufficiently linked the defendant to the residence to establish probable cause to issue the search warrant. Therefore, the officer’s reliance on the warrant was reasonable as to implicate the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule.
An affidavit in support of a search warrant that is deficient on its face may, under appropriate circumstance, be rehabilitated with facts not included in the affidavit if the evidence established that the omitted facts were actually disclosed to the magistrate under oath or affirmation. Obviously, a deficient affidavit in support of a search warrant cannot be cured by officer’s later testimony on his subjective intentions or knowledge. A deficient affidavit underlying the search warrant for residence, when read in conjunction with the criminal complaint, sufficiently linked the defendant to the residence to establish probable cause to issue the search warrant. Therefore, the officer’s reliance on the warrant was reasonable as to implicate the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule.
In Derr v. Commonwealth, 242 Va. 413, 410 S 662. (1991), the court held that the Fourth Amendment does not require that the sworn statement upon which the magistrate relies in determining probable cause be reduced to writing. An insufficient affidavit may be supplemented or rehabilitated by information disclosed to the issuing magistrate upon the application for the search warrant. Code Sec. 19.2-54 permits the magistrate to consider both the affidavit and the police officer’s verbal explanation that he did not have personal knowledge of the facts contained in the affidavit but had received the information from other officers. The affidavit may be supplemented or rehabilitated with additional affidavits which contain collective facts relevant to the same offenses when those affidavits are presented simultaneously to the issuing magistrate by the same officer. The magistrate did not violate Code Sec. 19.2-54 when she considered search. Courts should not invalidate warrants by interpreting affidavits in hyper-technical, rather than commonsense manner.
The Commonwealth submits that the search warrant for 1028 Stratem Court is valid, and even if there were some technical defect, the good faith exception would still permit the introduction of evidence seized from the vehicle.
