Even when a warrant turns out to be defective, the evidence is not automatically suppressed. The good-faith exception can let it in, on the theory that excluding evidence does little to deter police misconduct when the officers reasonably relied on a warrant a judge had approved. For anyone challenging a warrant, this is the obstacle that has to be planned for, because the State will raise it almost every time.
The good-faith exception can save evidence from a defective warrant, but it has defined limits. The situations on the right are where it does not apply.
What Leon Held
In United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984), the U.S. Supreme Court created an exception to the exclusionary rule for evidence obtained by officers acting in objectively reasonable reliance on a search warrant that is later found to be invalid. The reasoning is rooted in deterrence: when officers reasonably trust a warrant a judge has signed, suppressing the evidence does little to discourage police misconduct, because the error was the magistrate’s. So in the ordinary case of a flawed warrant, Leon allows the evidence in.
The Limits of Good Faith
Leon did not give the police a blank check, and it identified situations where good faith does not apply. Reliance is not reasonable when the affidavit is so lacking in indicia of probable cause that no reasonable officer would credit it, when the magistrate was misled by an affidavit containing falsehoods of the kind addressed by a Franks challenge, when the magistrate wholly abandoned the neutral and detached role, or when the warrant is so facially deficient, so lacking in particularity about the place or things, that the officers could not reasonably presume it valid. Each of these is a path around the exception.
How It Fits in Florida
Florida applies the good-faith exception. Article I, Section 12 of the Florida Constitution conforms the state’s search-and-seizure protections to the Fourth Amendment as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court, so the rule from Leon governs warrant cases in Florida courts. As a practical matter, that means a Florida suppression motion challenging a warrant has to do more than show the warrant was defective. It has to show why the good-faith exception does not rescue the evidence, by fitting the facts into one of the limits Leon set. Florida polices the exception’s limits, and in State v. Geiss, 70 So. 3d 642 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011), and McCray v. State, 496 So. 2d 919 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986), the courts addressed when reliance on a warrant is and is not reasonable.
Why It Matters to Your Motion
The good-faith exception is the State’s most common answer in a warrant case. You can show that the affidavit was thin or that the warrant was defective, and the State will respond that the officers relied on it in good faith, so the evidence should come in anyway. That means winning a warrant challenge often takes two steps: showing the warrant was invalid, and then showing the case falls into one of the situations where good faith does not apply. Anticipating the good-faith argument from the start is part of building a suppression motion that can succeed.
Attacking Good Faith
The exception has defined limits, and each is a line of attack. If the affidavit was so lacking in any indication of probable cause that no reasonable officer would have relied on it, good faith fails. If the magistrate was misled by a false or reckless affidavit, the Franks situation, good faith does not save it. If the magistrate abandoned the neutral role, or if the warrant was so facially deficient, so vague about the place or the things, that no officer could reasonably presume it valid, the exception does not apply. The work is fitting the facts of the case into one of these limits.
Good faith is where a lot of promising suppression motions go to die, and I plan for it from the start. As a former public defender, I know the situations Leon leaves outside the exception, a bare affidavit, a misled magistrate, a facially defective warrant, and I build the motion to land in one of them. When the defect in a warrant was one no reasonable officer should have relied on, I make sure good faith does not quietly rescue the search.
I started out as an Assistant Public Defender in Florida’s Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, in Tampa, and today I am one of six ACS-CHAL Forensic Lawyer-Scientists in Florida. I work both the science and the procedure in your case the way the State’s own analysts and officers are trained to, and I show a jury the exact point where the evidence does not hold up. Learn more about my background.
Questions About the Good-Faith Exception
What is the good-faith exception?
It is a rule that allows evidence obtained under a defective warrant to be used anyway, if the officers relied on the warrant in objectively reasonable good faith. It comes from United States v. Leon and applies mainly in warrant cases.
What did United States v. Leon hold?
The Supreme Court held that the exclusionary rule does not bar evidence obtained by officers acting in objectively reasonable reliance on a warrant issued by a magistrate, even if the warrant is later found to lack probable cause.
When does good faith not apply?
Leon identified situations where it fails: when the affidavit was so lacking in probable cause that reliance was unreasonable, when the magistrate was misled by a false affidavit, when the magistrate abandoned a neutral role, and when the warrant was so facially deficient that no officer could reasonably presume it valid.
Does good faith apply to warrantless searches?
The exception is centered on reliance on a warrant. A warrantless search is judged by whether it fit a recognized exception in the first place, so the good-faith analysis from Leon does not operate the same way without a warrant.
Does Florida follow the good-faith exception?
Yes. Through Article I, Section 12 of the Florida Constitution, which conforms Florida's search-and-seizure law to the Fourth Amendment as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court, Florida applies the good-faith exception recognized in Leon.
How do you overcome a good-faith argument?
By showing the case fits one of the limits Leon set, such as a bare-bones affidavit, a misled magistrate, a magistrate who abandoned neutrality, or a warrant too facially deficient to be reasonably relied on. Those are the situations where good faith does not rescue the evidence.
Related pages: motion to suppress overview, probable cause and the affidavit, franks challenges, and the suppression hearing.
This page is general information, not legal advice, and it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Search and seizure in Florida is governed by the Fourth Amendment, Article I, Section 12 of the Florida Constitution, and Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190. The law changes and every case turns on its own facts. Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
