Opinion ID: 2185538
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Leon Issue.

Text: We next consider the State's effort to avoid suppression of the fruits of the illegal search on the strength of United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984). In measuring the scope of the exclusionary rule to be ascribed to federal fourth amendment violations, federal law is controlling. Because the Supreme Court in Leon has recognized a so-called good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule, so must we in making this federal law determination. As we have previously recognized, however, Leon does not provide an across-the-board reward for good faith. State v. Iowa Dist. Court, 472 N.W.2d 621, 624-25 (Iowa 1991). Under the Leon rule, the exclusion of illegally obtained evidence is to be refused only on an ad hoc basis in situations in which the officer's good-faith motivation casts doubt on the deterrent effect of an exclusionary rule in the particular situation. Conversely, as Leon expressly recognized, the exclusionary rule should continue to operate in those areas where its remedial objectives are thought most efficaciously served. Leon, 468 U.S. at 908, 104 S.Ct. at 3412-13, 82 L.Ed.2d at 689. One commentator has interpreted Leon as follows: This reference [in Leon ] to a case-by-case approach, taken together with the other passages quoted, supports the conclusion that the Court meant to fashion a sliding scale of remedies to be applied in accordance with the nature of the violation of the right. The Court also appears to have decided that though it could take judicial notice that exclusion is not necessary to deter certain violations, other situations may emerge case-by-case that will also require the use of the exclusionary rule to effectuate fourth amendment rights. Goldstein, The Search Warrant, the Magistrate, and Judicial Review, 62 N.Y.U.L.Rev. 1173, 1204-05 (1987). In the present situation, involving a dragnet search warrant, the deterrent aspects of the exclusionary rule are well served by exclusion of the challenged evidence. This is because a refusal to exclude the evidence will certainly have the effect of encouraging similar dragnet search warrants in the future. It is not necessary, however, to go beyond the examples contained in Leon itself to justify exclusion of the evidence. The Court in Leon identified certain situations in which exclusion is still warranted. One such situation deals with warrants that are so overbroad as to be facially invalid. See Leon, 468 U.S. at 923, 104 S.Ct. at 3421, 82 L.Ed.2d at 699. To the extent that the warrant in the present case authorized the search of the person and vehicles of any other subjects at the residence after the signing of the search warrant, we believe it was facially deficient with respect to overbreadth. Another situation identified in Leon where exclusion is warranted involves a warrant application so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render official belief in its existence entirely unreasonable. Id. As indicated in the prior division of this opinion, the indicia of probable cause in the present case must be considered with respect to defendant's automobile rather than the Rodriguez residence. The quantum of evidence offered in the search warrant application to show a nexus between criminal activity or evidence of crime and defendant's automobile or person was zero. In State v. Iowa District Court, 472 N.W.2d at 624-25, we found Leon to be inapplicable because of facial invalidity of the warrant and also because the magistrate's probable cause finding was not objectively reasonable. Id. The lack of objective reasonableness appears to be even greater in this case. See also United States v. Hove, 848 F.2d 137, 140 (9th Cir. 1988) (information providing nexus to place to be searched was so deficient that any official belief in the existence of probable cause must be considered unreasonable); Nelms v. State, 568 So.2d 384, 388 (Ala. App.1990) (staleness of events tending to establish probable cause rendered belief of probable cause unreasonable). After considering all arguments presented, we conclude that the district court should have sustained the motion to suppress evidence derived from the seizure and search of defendant's automobile and evidence derivative therefrom. Such derivative evidence includes statements made by defendant after his vehicle was stopped, both before and after he was placed under arrest. We reverse the order of the district court and remand the case for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. REVERSED AND REMANDED.