Court Opinion

ID: 9677512
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 05:54:00.847532+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:56.460444
License: Public Domain

Jim Gunter, Justice, size that the dissenting. I write separately to emphasize that the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule is applicable to the present case and supports the circuit court’s denial of Appellant’s motion to suppress. Therefore, I respectfully dissent. The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution declares: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Id. The Fourth Amendment does not define unreasonableness, but it is well settled that a warrantless search is presumptively unreasonable unless it falls under a narrow exception to the warrant requirement. One such exception was articulated in the landmark case of United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984), in which the United States Supreme Court stated that when an officer relies in good faith on a search warrant that is later determined to be unsupported by probable cause, any evidence discovered by reason of that search will not be suppressed. In Leon, the Court announced that the good-faith exception applies when the executing officers’ good-faith reliance on an invalid search warrant is objectively reasonable. Id. at 919. The good-faith exception cannot cure certain errors, namely: (1) when the magistrate is misled by information the affiant knew was false; (2) if the magistrate wholly abandons his detached and neutral judicial role; (3) when the affidavit is so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render official belief in its existence entirely unreasonable; and (4) when a warrant is so facially deficient that the executing officers cannot reasonably presume it to be valid. Leon, 468 U.S. at 914-15 (emphasis added). Further, in Leon, the Court stated that, “depending on the circumstances of the particular case, a warrant may be so facially deficient — i.e., in failing to particularize the place to be searched or the things to be seized — that the executing officers cannot reasonably presume it to be valid.” Id. at 923. Thus, the Court reasoned, “the good-faith exception, turning as it does on objective reasonableness, should not be difficult to apply in practice. ... In the absence of an allegation that the magistrate abandoned his detached and neutral role, suppression is appropriate only if the officers were dishonest or reckless in preparing their affidavit or could not have harbored an objectively reasonable belief in the existence of probable cause.” Id. at 924-926. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit provides guidance for our understanding of the objective standard of good faith articulated by the Leon court in determining what a reasonable, “well-trained police officer” would have believed constitutes probable cause. In United States v. Martin, 833 F.2d 752 (8th Cir. 1987), the Eighth Circuit reasoned: Although a police officer may not rely entirely on the magistrate’s finding of probable cause, in cases where, as here, the courts cannot agree on whether the affidavit is sufficient, it would be unfair to characterize the conduct of the executing officers as bad faith, particularly where there has been no material false statements or misrepresentations in the affidavit and where the officer is acting in good faith. When judges can look at the same affidavit and come to differing conclusions, a police officer’s reliance on that affidavit must, therefore, be reasonable. . . . Id. at 755-56. Similar to the Fourth Amendment in the United States Constitution, article 2, § 15 of the Arkansas Constitution provides: The right of the people of this State to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; and no warrant shall issue, except upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or thing to be seized. Id. In consideration of nighttime searches, we are guided by Rule 13.2(c) of the Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure (2007), which provides: Except as hereafter provided, the search warrant shall provide that it be executed between the hours of six a.m. and eight p.m., and within a reasonable time, not to exceed sixty (60) days. Upon a finding by the issuing judicial officer of reasonable cause to believe that: (i) the place to be searched is difficult of speedy access; or (ii) the objects to be seized are in danger of imminent removal; (iii) the warrant can only be safely or successfully executed at nighttime or under circumstances the occurrence of which is difficult to predict with accuracy; the issuing judicial officer may, by appropriate provision in the warrant, authorize its execution at any time, day or night, and within a reasonable time not to exceed sixty (60) days from the date of issuance. Id. Pursuant to the rule, if any one of the exceptions is present, the issuing magistrate may, by appropriate provision in the warrant, authorize its execution at any time of day or night. See id. Thus, the question in this case is whether the good-faith exception, as articulated in Leon, supra, should be extended to nighttime searches. In Arkansas, we have consistently held that a factual basis supporting a nighttime search is required as a prerequisite to the issuance of a warrant authorizing a nighttime search. Davis v. State, 367 Ark 330, 240 S.W.3d 115 (2006); Cummings v. State, 353 Ark. 618, 110 S.W.3d 272 (2003); Fouse v. State, 337 Ark. 13, 989 S.W.2d 146 (1999). The majority’s rigid adherence to establishing, by way of an affidavit, a separate probable cause to search at night is not supported in either the U.S. or Arkansas Constitution. Here, the majority is misguided in concluding that a heightened probable-cause requirement exists for a good-faith-exception in a nighttime-search context. The majority mistakenly concludes that there should be: (1) the probable-cause determination in the affidavit for the execution of the search warrant and (2) a second probable-cause requirement for the justification of a nighttime search. In our most recent case of Fouse v. State, 337 Ark. 13, 989 S.W.2d 146 (1999), we established the precedent that even if we determine that a search warrant is deficient under Ark. R. Crim. P. 13.2(c) to justify a nighttime search, we shall turn to the issue of whether the police officers acted in good faith in executing the search warrant under Leon, supra. That same logic should apply to the present case. Under a Leon analysis, there has been no allegation that judge “abandoned his detached and neutral role,” nor has there been any allegation that the officers were “dishonest or reckless.” Id. at 926. Further, on the night that Appellant was taken into custody, I would hold that the officers “harbored an objectively reasonable belief in the existence of probable cause” for the nighttime search. Id. The officer appeared before the judge at 2 a.m., gave the information under oath, and Appellant was in custody at the time. Based on the officer’s actions, I see no unreasonableness in the officer’s obtaining a warrant and in his good-faith belief that he had probable cause to search Appellant’s residence. Additionally, I would hold that the good-faith exception applies for the following reasons. First, the affidavit, which was written by Sergeant Michaels, was not “so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render official belief in its existence entirely unreasonable.” Leon, 468 U.S. at 914-15. Based upon M.M.’s statement, the officers knew that Appellant kept nude photographs of M.M. at his residence; that the child had seen the nude photographs on Appellant’s digital camera; that the child believed those images were stored on Appellant’s computer; and that the child believed the photographs were still in Appellant’s possession and stored on his computer in his room. Second, these officers were confronted with the likelihood that this evidence of child pornography was in danger of imminent removal. At the suppression hearing, Detective Ben Skeel testified that there was “the potential for destruction of property.” Further, Sergeant Michaels testified that Appellant was “very, very adamant about making phone calls” to his sister, and that “a digital camera and a computer is something that could be [grabbed].” This information was communicated by the officer to the magistrate upon the issuing of the search warrant. At the suppression hearing, the following colloquy occurred: Q: Did you request for this to be a nighttime search? A: Yes, ma’am, I did. Q: Okay. First of all, were you sworn by the judge when you went with the affidavit? A: Yes, ma’am. Q: Okay. Were you still sworn, well, did you request a nighttime search? A: Yes, ma’am, I did request. Q: Okay. Did you put in that affidavit why you wanted a nighttime search? A: The reason I had in the affidavit is that items are to be seized are in imminent, or in danger of imminent removal. Q: Okay. Did you, was the magistrate or the judge ever given a reason for that nighttime search? A: He, every time I go before the judge with a no not clause or, or a nighttime clause, he has me elaborate on it — Q: Okay. A: — on it, so, he, he did ask me as to why is it imminent, in imminent danger of removal. Q: Okay. Were you sworn during that time? A: Yes, ma’am. Q: And, what did you tell him? A: I explained to him that we were in fear that items were going to be removed from the residence because Mr. Kelley was adamant about making phone calls to contact his, I believe it was his sister, and, and his reasoning for wanting to call her was to obtain his medications. But, he was very, very adamant about making phone calls. And, due to the fact that they were talking about a digital camera and a computer is something that could easily be, you know, he could easily ask her to, hey, can you grab my computer and camera, take it out of the residence. Q: While she was grabbing the medication? A: While she was grabbing the medication. It’s not like, it’s not like it’s a huge safe or anything that could be, that you need a dolly or anything to get out of there. Q: Did, did he [the judge] sign your warrant after that? A: Yes, ma’am. When assessing a good-faith reliance on the magistrate’s determination of probable cause, we must determine whether the officers’ reliance upon the search warrant was objectively reasonable. Fouse, 337 Ark. at 21, 989 S.W.2d at 149 (citing Leon, supra). Sergeant Michaels testified that he believed that Appellant attempted to get his sister to dispose of the equipment and the images on the computer and digital camera. Given the portability of the items to be seized and the fact that the photographs could be easily deleted, Sergeant Michaels believed that the items were in danger of imminent removal and that a nighttime search was warranted. See, e.g., U.S. v. Rugh, 968 F.2d 750 (8th Cir. 1992) (holding that, under the totality of the circumstances, there were sufficient facts to establish the officer’s objectively reasonable belief that probable cause existed to justify a nighttime search in which child pornography, including photographs and videotapes, was confiscated). Therefore, I would conclude that the circuit court properly relied upon Sergeant Michaels’s testimony that he held an objectively reasonable belief that a nighttime search of Appellant’s home was justified under Rule 13.2(c)(iii). Based upon our standard of review in light of the totality of the circumstances, I would hold that the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule is applicable to the case sub judice and supports the circuit court’s denial of Appellant’s motion to suppress. I would affirm. Brown, J., joins in this dissent.