Opinion ID: 2436409
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the good faith question

Text: It was argued below that the arrest, based on the warrants from Monroe County, was illegal and, therefore, all evidence produced as a result of the arrest must be excluded. That is the exclusionary rule. Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 83 S.Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963). However, the United States Supreme Court has modified the exclusionary rule if officers act in the reasonable good faith belief that a search or seizure was in accord with the Fourth Amendment. United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984). The Court stated: In the ordinary case, an officer cannot be expected to question the magistrate's probable-cause determination or his judgment that the form of the warrant is technically sufficient. `[O]nce the warrant issues, there is literally nothing more the policeman can do in seeking to comply with the law' ... Penalizing the officer for the magistrate's error, rather than his own, cannot logically contribute to the deterrence of Fourth Amendment violations.... [T]he officer's reliance on the magistrate's probable-cause determination and on the technical sufficiency of the warrant he issues must be objectively reasonable.... [I]t is clear that in some circumstances the officer will have no reasonable grounds for believing that the warrant was properly issued. That ruling has been extended to include evidence obtained by police who act in objective reasonable reliance on a statute later found unconstitutional. Ill. v. Krull, 480 U.S. 340, 107 S.Ct. 1160, 94 L.Ed.2d 364 (1987). More recently an extension was made to cover the actual execution of a search warrant. Maryland v. Garrison, 480 U.S. 79, 107 S.Ct. 1013, 94 L.Ed.2d 72 (1987). In this case the question is: should the officers have known the Monroe County warrants were invalid because they were signed by a clerk instead of the judge? There is no evidence at all that the warrants were issued except in good faith. A pretrial motion was filed alleging no probable cause to arrest Starr on murder. No hearing was held on this question, counsel merely argued and the judge overruled the pretrial motion to suppress. The state said it would produce evidence that he was arrested on warrants for burglary. Later, the warrants were presented, and after the testimony of the officers, the defense argued the arrests were invalid on the basis of Stewart v. State, 289 Ark. 272, 711 S.W.2d 787 (1986). In Stewart blank warrants were signed by the judge and left with the clerk to issue. A policeman obtained such a warrant on the basis of an unsworn affidavit. We held the arrest invalid and found no evidence of any good faith. In this case the defense argued these Monroe County warrants were not signed by a judge, accompanied by an affidavit or information and, therefore, the arrest was invalid. The trial judge distinguished the Stewart case and ruled the officers in this case acted in good faith. We have only the unrefuted testimony of the officers. It was not uncommon for the clerk to sign warrants. The warrants appeared regular to them on their face, and they acted in good faith in executing them. There was no evidence offered controverting the fact that Starr was wanted for the burglary and theft in Monroe County. That is, the argument was not that there was actually no probable cause, merely the warrants were invalid on their face and for that reason there was no probable cause. Our own rules of criminal procedure provide that the clerk of the court or his deputy may, when authorized by the judge of that court, issue an arrest warrant upon filing of an information or upon affidavit sworn to by the complaint and approved by the prosecuting attorney. A.R.Cr.P.Rule 7.1(c). These officers did what any ordinary Arkansas policeman would have done at the timethey arrested Starr. The trial occurred in October, 1986. In September, 1987, the United States District Court for Eastern Arkansas decided it is illegal for a clerk to issue an arrest warrant unless a probable cause determination has been made by a neutral and detached magistrate. Fairchild v. Lockhart, 675 F.Supp. 469 (E.D.Ark.1987). We have accepted that decision as correct. Davis v. State, 293 Ark. 472, 739 S.W.2d 150 (1987). These officers could not anticipate, nor should they have to, that an accepted practice would be ruled illegalthat our own rules would be declared wrong. There was no dishonest or reckless behavior on the part of any of the officers in this case; there is no evidence refuting they acted in good faith in accepting these warrants which appeared routinely issued. It is pointed out that A.R.Cr.P.Rule 7.2(a)(v) provides that an arrest warrant will have attached to it a copy of an information or an affidavit. It is also pointed out that Leon does not apply to facially invalid warrants. That omission is not, in our judgment, fatal. We will not assume it is customary in Arkansas that every arrest warrant have attached the information or affidavit. It is not even necessary for an officer to have an arrest warrant in his hand to make an arrest. In Woodall v. State, 260 Ark. 786, 543 S.W.2d 957 (1976), two state policemen, acting on the basis of information from the law enforcement computer indicating an out-of-state warrant, arrested a defendant. The officers had no warrant. Probable cause is evaluated on the basis of the collective information of the police. Jones v. State, 246 Ark. 1057, 441 S.W.2d 458 (1969). See also Logan v. State, 264 Ark. 920, 576 S.W.2d 203 (1979). It is argued that State v. Anderson, 286 Ark. 58, 688 S.W.2d 947 (1985), and Webb v. State, 269 Ark. 415, 601 S.W.2d 848 (1980), require reversal of the trial court's decision. In State v. Anderson the issue involved a search warrant issued without an accompanying sworn affidavit or sworn recorded testimony. We said the procedure of providing an affidavit when obtaining a search warrant is so standard a practice that we cannot consider such a deficiency as falling within the purview of the good faith error. That requirement is in the United States Constitution. The ordinary officer knows better than to seek a search warrant without any affidavit, or he should. The same is, of course, not true of an arrest warrant unless the officer executing it obtained it in bad faith. As we have demonstrated, an officer does not even have to have the warrant in hand. In Webb we found a warrant issued by a clerk defective but upheld the arrest on the basis of probable cause. The officer had probable cause because he relied upon information that an arrest warrant was outstanding. Webb did not declare the practice illegal of a clerk issuing a warrant. See Fairchild v. Lockhart, supra , in which the court discussed the meaning of Webb . The only objection at the trial was because the clerk signed the warrants and there were no accompanying affidavits. The only authority argued to the trial judge was the Stewart decision which he distinguished. It is now argued that even if there was probable cause, the warrants were invalid on their face and the good faith exception should not apply. The trial judge thought he was ruling on the question raised in Stewart v. State, supra . It was not until Fairchild v. Lockhart, supra , that the Arkansas legal community changed its practice. What we have is a decision by the trial court based on objections specifically made, testimony and evidence offered, and our review is limited to whether he was wrong. Harris v. State, 295 Ark. 456, 748 S.W.2d 666 (1988). There is no evidence that the officers acted except in good faith and according to custom. No pretrial motion was filed making the argument now made on appeal. A narrow legal argument was made after the officers' testimony. There is no suggestion raised that this was a pretextual arrest. In Hines v. State, 289 Ark. 50, 709 S.W.2d 65 (1980), we said: On appeal, all presumptions are favorable to the trial court's ruling on the legality of the arrest and the burden is on the appellant to demonstrate error... [A] nontechnical approach has been said to afford the best compromise for accommodating the competing interests of the individual and of society.... Other than the technical objection to the warrants, no evidence was offered to refute the officers' repeated testimony that Starr was warned of his rights and voluntarily confessed. So we conclude the confessions were properly admitted and the trial judge was not clearly wrong in upholding the arrest.