Opinion ID: 2996893
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Good-Faith Exception to the Exclusionary

Text: Rule Although the district court determined that the warrant lacked probable cause to issue, in its Order denying Merritt’s motion to suppress, the court also held that the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applied. In his appeal, Merritt essentially makes two interrelated arguments to challenge that holding. First, he complains that the district court created a new, legally incognizable goodfaith exception to the exclusionary rule because it was AUSA Vaughn who actually sat at the keyboard and typed up the affidavit in support of the warrant. Second, should that argument fail, he asserts that the court erred when it found that Agent Vergon’s reliance upon a facially valid warrant issued by a neutral and detached magistrate was objectively reasonable. And because Merritt does not challenge whether the magistrate judge was neutral and detached, this second inquiry is concerned only with Agent Vergon’s objectively reasonable reliance.
As noted above, during the December hearing, among other witnesses, the district court heard from Agent Vergon about the circumstances leading up to and including the drafting of the affidavit and application for the warrant. Throughout the Club 2001 investigation, Agent Vergon provided AUSA Vaughn with bi-weekly reports, in writing, in person, and by telephone. During the drafting of the affidavit on January 22, 2001, AUSA Vaughn reviewed Agent Vergon’s reports. The two discussed the facts of the case and the content of the affidavit. AUSA Vaughn served as scrivener and Agent Vergon reviewed and edited the affidavit. It is common practice for a federal prosecutor to work with, alongside, and conjointly with a law-enforcement offiNo. 02-4211 11 cer in the drafting of an affidavit in support of a warrant application. In this case, Agent Vergon was the signatory and the fact that it happened to be the AUSA who sat at the keyboard and typed the affidavit is immaterial to our good faith analysis. Merritt’s counsel is unable to point to any case that says otherwise. In fact, volumes of case law encourage this sort of cooperation between the prosecutor and law-enforcement officers. See, e.g., Leon, 468 U.S. at 903-04 n.4 (applying good-faith exception where officers consulted with three deputy district attorneys before submitting deficient warrants to the court); United States v. Johnson, 78 F.3d 1258, 1264 (8th Cir. 1996) (noting that seeking the advice of a district attorney is a factor weighing in favor of determining that the officer’s reliance on the warrant was objectively reasonable); United States v. Carter, 999 F.2d 182, 184-88 (7th Cir. 1993) (holding that a prosecutor’s participation in the drafting of a “no-knock” provision of a warrant, later found to be insufficiently justified by the affidavit, did not preclude application of the good-faith exception); United States v. Tagbering, 985 F.2d 946, 949-51 (8th Cir. 1993) (applying the good-faith exception where a prosecutor had reviewed and signed the warrant affidavit before it was submitted to the court); United States v. Brown, 951 F.2d 999, 1005 (9th Cir. 1991) (noting “an officer’s consultation with a government attorney is of significant importance to a finding of good faith”). Refusing to apply the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule simply because an affidavit was prepared with the assistance and approval of prosecutors would do nothing to forward the rule’s basic purpose, to deter police misconduct. As we discuss below and as the district court noted, in a case such as this where the issue is whether probable cause existed, Agent Vergon’s consultation with the AUSA particularly supports the finding that his reliance upon the warrant was objectively reasonable. 12 No. 02-4211
We next consider whether Agent Vergon’s reliance on a facially valid warrant issued by a neutral and detached magistrate was objectively reasonable. As a preliminary matter, we observe that an objectively reasonable belief that the warrant was properly issued must be demonstrated by the officer who provided the information material to the probable cause determination, the officer who obtained the warrant, and the officer who executed the warrant. Leon, 468 U.S. at 923 n.24. In this case, Agent Vergon provided the information for the warrant, obtained the warrant, and executed the warrant. And as noted supra Part II.A.1., Merritt does not challenge the district court’s finding that Agent Vergon did not act recklessly or intentionally under Franks, 438 U.S. 154 (1978 ), (i.e., with bad faith), in providing the information for the warrant or in obtaining the warrant. Hence, we are concerned here only with whether Agent Vergon acted with an objectively reasonable belief that the warrant was properly issued when he executed the warrant. The government must establish such objective reasonableness or “good faith” by a preponderance of the evidence, Koerth, 312 F.3d at 868; United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164, 177 n.14 (1974). Agent Vergon’s decision to obtain a warrant is prima facie evidence of good faith, rebuttable if the affidavit was “so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render official belief in its existence entirely unreasonable.” 312 F.3d at 868 (quotations omitted). Here, Agent Vergon’s reliance was objectively reasonable for three primary reasons. First, the affidavit in this case was not “bare bones” or “boilerplate form.” See United States v. Peck, 317 F.3d 754, 757 (7th Cir. 2003) (finding affidavit sufficient even though “bare bones”). Agent Vergon provided numerous details and facts about the fire at Club 2001, including the No. 02-4211 13 number of years he had been with the BATF, his knowledge and experience investigating criminal complaints, particularly arson cases, the amount of the insurance policy, and Merritt’s use of an accountant. Second, the affidavit was drafted, reviewed, and approved by AUSA Vaughn. Probable cause is a legal term of art and a “fluid concept” not “reduc[ible] to a neat set of legal rules,” United States v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 232 (1983), and as to which “[r]easonable minds frequently may differ,” Leon, 468 U.S. at 914. As the district court aptly noted, it is “incapable of precise definition.” Thus, as we stated above, consultation with a prosecutor weighs in favor of a finding of objective reasonableness. Third, and similarly, the warrant was issued by a neutral and detached magistrate. “[I]n the ordinary case, a law enforcement officer ‘cannot be expected to question’ the magistrate’s probable cause determination.” United States v. Sleet, 54 F.3d 303, 307 (7th Cir. 1995) (quoting Illinois v. Krull, 480 U.S. 340, 349 (1987)); see also Massachusetts v. Sheppard, 468 U.S. 981, 989-90 (1984) (officer cannot be “required to disbelieve” the judge issuing the warrant). To summarize, Vergon did everything he could to obtain a proper warrant. He collected information which he relayed to the AUSA. He then went to AUSA Vaughn for assistance in drafting an affidavit that would comply with the Fourth Amendment. Next Vergon went to a neutral and detached magistrate to obtain the warrant. Only then did he execute the warrant. There is no reason to expect Agent Vergon to second-guess both the magistrate judge, with years of training and experience in a judicial capacity, and AUSA Vaughn. The affidavit is not “so plainly deficient that any reasonably well-trained officer ‘would have known that his affidavit failed to establish probable cause and that he 14 No. 02-4211 should not have applied for the warrant.’ ” Koerth, 312 F.3d at 869 (quoting Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 345 (1986)). Having determined that the district court was correct in finding that Agent Vergon’s reliance on the warrant was objectively reasonable, we make one final inquiry into the costs and benefits of excluding the seventy-four firearms— “inherently trustworthy tangible evidence obtained in reliance on a search warrant issued by a detached and neutral magistrate that ultimately [was] found to be defective.” Leon, 468 U.S. at 906-07. In the instant case, the cost of excluding the evidence would be to “essentially let Merritt free.” (R.45 at 22.) But there would be no corresponding benefit because, as alluded to earlier, suppression in this case would not further the deterrent purpose of the exclusionary rule since Agent Vergon acted in good faith and made every effort to comply with the Fourth Amendment. We agree with the district court that the balance tipped in favor of allowing the evidence. Consequently, we affirm its denial of Merritt’s motion to suppress.