more question sure is there anything in the world application where the sister sides i saw these items and i was in his home day or two or this and those items were there not in the war burglary or these items are found the defendant's residence rather is a very short distance from the location of the burglary and this defendant is attempting are willing to give a playstation or item worth several hundred dollars away so it's more than just the items themselves it's proximity to the perjury itself it's the fact that the possessor of the item is willing to give it away to the family member to a family member but me four hundred dollar items but nevertheless could be could be a very generous span but i think in a small town of course it's enough to raise suspicion you say a small town but i guess i'm just wondering i wonder how many people had these items that we're talking about a flat screen t v you know video game console how many people in this small town happens types of things in their home so i don't know if that's really understand the porch concern and yes these are items that are somewhat common but you know that's why they're stolen because there is a high demand for them and things like this are easily sold and given away however you know it's not just the fact that all of these items that there's there's a large quantities of them out there i mean are these items such that all of them are seen together and there might be a lot of t v s but there might not be a lot of t v s with playstation forces well these playstation three two or one battlefield four once you add or maybe large numbers for which you add them all together how many people have them all and i think there was a suggestion in the well i believe that the warrant actually indicated that there were rows that when the witness went into the home the following day there were other playstation counsels games flat screen t v so this is what she observed when she went into th tenets residence on the third of july so multiple consuls multiple says councils plural games plural and a flat screen t v that's what it says in the application that's what it says in the war really the main argument that i hear to make today as that the the war could have been a little bit more artfully crafted in yes these are somewhat common items but i think the warrant is sufficient that's the state position you hold the fact that it is so close in proximity to where the person really transpired fact that the guy's willing to give items of significant value away the fact that the witness sees all of these items together in h go after explaining what the exceptions to the application of the to the rule that they just carved out might be it states that only in the first exception and that's were the magistrate you know it's not  belief in its existence entirely unreasonable and you know that specific language actually does not present in the illinois statute codified this particular exception you know the statute dealing with good faith doesn't have that kind of language it simply suggests that in a criminal proceeding the evidence has to be proven that the evidence was seized by police officer who acted in good  good faith means pursuant to a search warrant to arrest warrant obtained from a neutral and detached judge which warrants is free from obvious defects other than non deliberate errors in preparation and contains no material misrepresentation by any age of the state and the officer reasonably believed that the warrant to be valid so you'd have to show that this officer must have understood  there was some impropriety with this war that it was you know to use the language in leon entirely unreasonable his belief that this warrant was appropriate has to be deemed entirely unreasonable the fact that we can even argue whether or not probable cause was a fact that we have an unbiased magistrate that has already issued this warning how can this officer have done anything different than what he has done exclusionary rule is attempting to punish the investigating officer for having done something negligently or intentionally wrong that's not even alleged assessments so what is the purpose of trying to exclude evidence the rule is not advanced by the application of the exclusion of this evidence so the the whole purpose for the existence of the exclusionary rule doesn't to suppress evidence indicated that it did not believe that there were things impropriety on the part of the police the words there any impropriety on the on the court that issued the warrant in the first  cooled her therefore going to grant the motion to suppress there was no substantial basis for concluding probable cause nor with the good paper exception of clive because the warrant is so lacking and regards to the facts it's now up to the police officer to question whether or not the warrant lacks facts that's up to the magistrate that's up to the judge and accordingly on it was very clear nine sixteen and leon so this officer has done everything that we want an officer to do perhaps he could have drafted the warrant a little bit more effectively but the trial ordered the issue in court the cour issue the warrant should have brought that to the attention of the officer if the court thought up or slack it did it issued a search warrant the officer saying officer improperly when executed that it better i thought so too the only reason they could possibly have stuck in the exception number three which is what we're talking about is i guess they didn't want to propose the possibility that there could be a warrant so ridiculous as to be beyond the pale i mean it was just so obviously lacking that it almost implied some type of them propriety and having a warrant granted i don't know but i couldn't agree with you more judge the exception is now if you can show that the officer gave an improper affidavit that he gave false information in convincing the judge to issue the warrant or if the judge was guilty of some other type of the propriety or some other you know they'll galatea an issue in the warrant but yeah the whole purpose for the exclusionary rule is to tell that officer don't do that again you did something inappropriate we don't want you to repeat their behavior what lacking and in the ship because that that doesn't apply absolutely sets the state's position that even in the absence of probable cause should not sanction actually the state by suppressing the savage because that's not the purpose of the exclusionary rule you're not advancing that rule or the purpose behind it at all you know you're not telling this officer did he did something wrong or that he should have done something that he didn't do is it implying or putting on the officer some duty to examine power because even though i realize take it to the judge the judge signs it or not is it putting somebody on the officer that you just can't i mean it's clear that there's not because you just can't go well obviously the officer is going to be educated as to what general use required in order to be successful to get a search warrant and so i would think that he would have some understanding of what is required to get probable cause however it is the whole purpose for the exclusionary rule almost the only purpose for the exclusionary is to try to keep that officer from getting to rest in his desire to obtain evidence by requiring that he get a search warrant first and that he get approval from a court so he's supposed to be honest and he's supposed to be following the letter of the law and getting that search warrant but it's really not up to him to determine whether or not probable cause exists that's not his function he's supposed to rely on the court for that and so you if you're going to punish him after he's done everything it should have done then you should point out what he needs to do the next time did he didn't do and this instance that required that type of sanction and you know and so if we were to say that this was lacking in probable cause given that it did not even state when the burglary occurred over and able to identify these you know common items the civic right right which had some identifiers according to the information we have here isn't it putting an obligation on the not constitute probable cause and that's not the officers function that's the court's function the officers to put up as much evidence to see possibly can gather to try to make the court as comfortable as he can make that judge says ok you've got enough here then he's got enough if the judge says no you don't go out and find more that he's got to do that i'm just kind of focused on this language you know that talks about a warrant based on an affidavit and the officers the one who prepares that affidavit that's correct actually that that affidavit is insufficient it's up to the court to tell the officer just that when the court tells the officer it is sufficient and signs that will and the officer then appropriately relies upon that judge and his determination that probable cause has been  then there's no reason for application of the exclusionary rule at that point then why have this rule because obviously this is assumed that an officer has prepared affidavit the court has given it given the officer his or her blessing and signed the application for the warrant and the warrant has been served and now this says that the officer even though going through that process cannot rely on that when it is so i think the only reason they could put that in there and they did put it in pretty strong language share it doesn't just say that if you know the probable cause hasn't been met this is so lacking in addition of probable cause as to render a visual believe in its existence entirely unreasonable so it must be extreme it must really be bad and i think that there are they just try to leave it open because they thought perhaps there could be is the problem here the search warrant allows for essentially a fishing expedition these household items a television a video game console and a video game are so common that it's equivalent to saying a microwave was stolen from someone's house and another person reported a microwave in their house in granting a search warrant now did this sister indicate that she saw multiple consuls or just problem the items they were looking for i was going to mention that on the initial execution of the search warrant the items for not found there was a subsequent search and the items were later found i believe in a garage  located on the property but in the initial search they were not found where did officer record with two wrong he drafted a search warrant that allowed for a fishing expedition and the illinois supreme court and people versus specifically discussed that the prophylactic nature of exclusion rule is served by preventing fishing expeditions that's the that's what this war well actually at the airport cation for the war when he describes the property that he's searching for fairly specific on some of the with the sticker in the serial number in their capability but there was nothing in the affidavit that really time those particular items with the sisters absolutely there was no there was no sufficient nexus linking those items that had been stolen and the sister's description of the items that were seen at the house the state price point to the proximity to the crime however any  however these items are also ubiquitous the most rare item was the battlefield game which has sold seven million copies in any house where that came is in order i think that that is more narrow of a reading than leon sets for the more than leon sets for my reading of leon is that there's a good faith exception and then it puts for limits on it and one of those limits is that probable cause is so lacking that it's under reasonable to believe that there is probable cause and reasonable entirely reasonable entirely unreasonable yes we're the supreme court member i believe the supreme court meant exactly the case that we have here a warrant that is so big that it could apply to any household certainly officers do have some responsibility to put forth to the core search warrants that link that that create a sufficient nexus that is a requirement there is not there is just simply none here there could have been more information to correct the search warrant and make a profit b if they had excuse me if they hadn't if the sister had described the easily discernible features of the items stolen that work that would make it different than any other house that had a game playing station and television such as the sticker or even the remote that was silver and camouflage whether that's again easily identifiable detail describing the items stolen and most of these controllers are black or white that could have been that could have possibly been enough to create a sufficient nexus to point to some of these details that make it this court in the bryant case warrant after receiving truthful information the police now have to second guess the ward the judge issued the purpose of the purpose of the exclusionary role as well the good faith exception is to punish or not punish inappropriate activity and here the warrant that was written was so vague that the exclusionary rule is served by preventing the evidence from coming at the i would say that in that case there was there was more information there were four different sources that called in to report the criminal activity and report the criminal activity at a specific address and you know cooking up methamphetamines is obviously illegal activity there's nothing illegal about having a television a gaming console in a videogame in your home so that is a distinguishing factor that what was being reported was not illegal it was not there was nothing wrong with having those things in your house there is also nothing wrong with offering for mr alice to offer to give some two pieces or nephew  relatively innocuous that is not enough for probable cause in that case there was a wiretap going on for drug trafficking and statement correct that come over here close to my house a warrant was obtained for searching the house and amber view the court said that was not enough for probable cause because come over to my house is relatively innocuous you can't assume drug activity likewise here having a television gaming console in a to discourage police officers from submitting their evidence to judicial officer before here the search warrant needed additional information and there's nothing to indicate that that could be it could have been obtained football so to me that's a clear thing where the exception number three hundred that is a form that can be a problem but here we have a warrant that is it equally outside the bounds because of its big mess it's not a it's not an obvious i guess error of changing of good on the face of of the war but these items are so common that it isn't just simply not enough for probable cause there's mill millions and identifiable distinguishing features that would have allowed for creating a link describing that sticker on on the gaming council console describing the hand controller if that was the sense i mean was unique was different than the normal normal controller this case presents ways that that could have been done properly where there weren't obvious ways that the warrant could have been properly written and it just simply wasn't therefore it's a good faith exception should should be looked at with that limit that third limit that it was entirely unreasonable and  i would ask that this course court do the same could have been more i think is a red herring that's not point the officer is not charged with the application of doing every conceivable thing that he could he's supposed to do his best present something to the court it's up to the court to determine whether or not probable cause exists that there's a great quote here in and leon basically the court concludes on page four nineteen and sure the officers conduct is objective really reasonable and i think this officer conduct was nobody has suggested it's not object the plea reasonable excluding evidence will not further the ends of the exclusionary rule in any appreciable way were it is painfully apparent that the officer acting as a reasonable officer would and should act in similar circumstances excluding the evidence can in no way affect his future conduct unless it is to make him less willing to do his duty this is particularly true we believe when an officer acting with the objective good faith has obtained a search warrant from a judge or magistrate and acted within its scope in most such cases there is no police illegality and thus nothing to deter it is the magistrate's responsibility to determine whether the officers our geisha ins establish probable cause and if so to issue a warrant comporting informed to the requirements of the poor the men and the word unary case  officer cannot be expected to question the magistrate's probable cause determination or his judgment that the form of the warrant is technically sufficient penalize ing the officer for the magistrate's error rather than his own cannot logically contribute to the deterrence of the fourth amendment violation and that's the states are you read in that show this officer has done nothing wrong he was objective bully reasonable