Opinion ID: 46216
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Pope’s Theories in the District Court

Text: Crucially, however, Pope advanced only the “bare bones affidavit” contention in the district court. She stated in her motion to suppress that “the Leon Court established four exceptions to this [exclusionary] rule, one of which, the ‘bare bones affidavit’ exception, is relevant here.”13 Nowhere in her motion did Pope even suggest that Baird lied in his affidavit by 12 Id. at 914. 13 Emphasis added. 8 concealing or deliberately omitting from the state district judge the “real purpose” for wanting to search Pope’s residence. She certainly never argued the point to the district court sufficiently to place it before that court for it to consider and decide. At the suppression hearing, Pope’s counsel did question Baird about his decision not to tell the state district judge about Baird’s suspicions that Pope was cooking meth when he asked for the search warrant. Baird responded that he did not mention his suspicions because he did not believe that they rose to the level of probable cause, and because he wanted his affidavit to “stand on its own.” Pope’s counsel also asked Baird why the officers accompanying him to Pope’s residence wore protective gear. Baird answered that the officers wore protective gear as a precaution, based on the possibility that they might encounter a meth lab. Baird remained steadfast, however, that “the intent of the search warrant was to find mere evidence of a previous [prescription-drug] buy.” Exactly what Pope’s counsel hoped to achieve through this line of questions is not clear, and we are loath to speculate about that now. At the conclusion of Baird’s testimony, though, the district court asked Pope’s counsel to reiterate and clarify Pope’s legal position. It presumably did so to ensure that its ruling would address all issues that she sought to raise, including any that she may have raised during the suppression hearing that were not included in her written motion. In response, Pope’s counsel 9 identified only those arguments made in her motion to suppress, viz., that (1) the affidavit was based on stale information, (2) the affidavit was “bare bones,” and (3) the good faith exception cannot apply because Baird’s affidavit was totally lacking in indicia of probable cause. Although these claims challenge the sufficiency of Baird’s affidavit to support either the state district judge’s determination that probable cause existed or Baird’s good faith in relying on that determination, none challenges its truthfulness. Prior to appeal, Pope simply did not assert that Baird lied in his affidavit about the “real purpose” of his proposed search.