Court Opinion

ID: 9571781
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:35:08.468265+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:30:56.043780
License: Public Domain

Justice VOLLACK
dissenting:
The majority holds that, because the warrant issued by the judge in this case was not supported by probable cause, the drugs found during the search of Leftwich’s residence must be suppressed. The majority further holds that the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule does not apply because no reasonable police officer would have relied on the warrant issued by the judge. I disagree with the majority’s analysis and conclusions.
I.
On March 12, 1993, the Boulder Police Department received an anonymous letter alleging that “Jeff,” a student at the University of Colorado, was an “active drug dealer.” The postmark on the letter was from Kansas City. The letter described the physical characteristics and age of the person, and provided a description of the vehicle he drove, including the vehicle license number. The letter also stated that the person was involved in transporting drugs from a music store in Kansas City to Boulder for resale. The full contents of the letter are related in the majority opinion.
The police officer assigned to the case, in conducting a search of the Boulder County vehicle registration computer, found that the *1273vehicle described in the anonymous letter was registered to Jeffrey Leftwich. The letter’s description of the vehicle, a blue 1976 Ford van, matched the information in the computer. The officer also obtained Left-wich’s address. Next, the officer checked voter registration records and ascertained that Leftwich was thirty-seven years old, approximately the age reported by the informant. The officer’s scan of the driver’s license registry confirmed the address of Left-wieh and the height and weight reported by the informant. A driver’s license photograph matched the description provided in the anonymous letter.
The Boulder police officer later contacted the drug enforcement unit of the Kansas City Police Department. An analyst there confirmed that the music store described in the anonymous letter was in an area “known as a high drug area.”
The anonymous letter predicted that Left-wich’s trips to Kansas City might coincide with the vacation times of the University of Colorado. Spring Break at the University in 1993 occurred during the week of March 22-26. The police officer made two or three trips each day to Leftwieh’s address during that week, and noted that there were never any vehicles parked in front of the residence, which was a mobile-home trailer. On March 27, the officer observed a car parked in the driveway of the residence. After checking the number of the license plate of the vehicle against motor vehicle records and obtaining the name of the vehicle’s owner, the officer was able to conclude that the trailer was visited by a felon who had been convicted two years earlier of possessing cocaine.1
During surveillance on March 28, the police officer recognized Leftwich’s Ford van parked in the driveway of the residence. It matched the description of the van, including the license number, that was given in the anonymous letter.
On March 29, the police officer called Left-wich, asking to speak with “Mister Leftwich.” The person who answered the telephone stated “This is Jeff.” The officer identified himself and said he was investigating a traffic accident in Utah. Leftwich told the officer he had been in Kansas City during Spring Break. Leftwich also stated he was driving the blue Ford van on the trip. Later that morning, another officer observed a person enter the van and drive away. He stated it was the same person pictured in the driver’s license photo of Leftwich.
Based on this information, the police officer applied for, and a Boulder District Court judge issued, a warrant to search Leftwich’s trailer and van. The search found drug paraphernalia, including a triple-beam balance, seventeen marijuana plants, four ounces of marijuana, and one kilogram (2.2 pounds) of hashish.
II.
I believe that probable cause existed to support the district court judge’s decision to issue the warrant.
' A.
To decide whether there was probable cause, the majority claims that it applies the test of the “totality of the circumstances” enunciated in Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983), and adopted by this court in People v. Pannebaker, 714 P.2d 904 (Colo.1986). Although the majority cites to Gates, it appears to apply instead the ritualistic Aguilar-Spinelli test, which Gates rejected in favor of the totality of the circumstances test.
In Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 84 S.Ct. 1509, 12 L.Ed.2d 723 (1964), the United States Supreme Court ruled that police could obtain probable cause from informants, that is, based on hearsay, but that the affidavit police submitted to the judge to obtain a warrant had to meet a two-pronged test. First, to address the potential problem of mistake, the police had to show a basis for the informant’s knowledge. Second, the police had to show that the informant was *1274credible, for example, through a reputation for honesty or veracity, or that the statement was against penal interest. In Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410, 89 S.Ct. 584, 21 L.Ed.2d 637 (1969), the Supreme Court modified the Aguilar test. The court ruled that, if there was a weakness in the first or second prong, the police could make up for it through independent police investigation or corroboration of the informant’s details.
Yet, an anonymous letter whose facts and allegations were corroborated by police would still likely fail the Aguilar-Spinelli test. In an attempt to rectify this dilemma, the Supreme Court in Illinois v. Gates abandoned the formalistic two-pronged test in favor of a test that determined probable cause by a “totality of the circumstances.” The court enunciated the test as one that, through the eyes of a reasonable police officer, asked the common-sense practical question of whether there was probable cause. The two prongs were still relevant, but were no longer absolutes.
“[P]robable cause is a fluid concept — turning on the assessment of probabilities in particular factual contexts — not readily, or even usefully, reduced to a neat set of legal rules.” Gates, 462 U.S. at 232, 103 S.Ct. at 2329. Under a totality of the circumstances test, probable cause is found through a combination of all the facts and conditions, not a ritualistic application of legal tests. “[Probable cause deals ‘with probabilities. These are not technical; they are the factual and practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent men, not legal technicians, act.’ ” Id. at 241, 103 S.Ct. at 2333-34 (quoting Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160, 175, 69 S.Ct. 1302, 1310-11, 93 L.Ed. 1879 (1949)). Reasonable minds may differ on the question of whether a particular affidavit establishes probable cause. United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 914, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 3416, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1983).
The majority announces that it is applying the Gates totality of the circumstances test to decide whether probable cause existed to search Leftwieh’s trailer. However, the opinion actually applies the prongs of the Aguilar-Spinelli test and bases its conclusion on the results of that test, not the Gates test.
First, the majority states that it is difficult to establish the anonymous informant’s reliability and veracity. Maj. op. at 1266. It then attacks the basis of the informant’s knowledge and concludes that the letter “does not allow an inference that the informer had personal knowledge Leftwich was involved in illegal activity.” Maj. op. at 1267. Next, the majority asserts that, since there is a weakness in these Aguilar prongs, “it may still be possible to obtain a warrant by corroborating the details of a tip through independent police work.” Maj. op. at 1267-1268.2 The opinion then focuses on the lack of corroboration of Leftwich’s criminal activity by the police. Finally, the majority reiterates its conclusions of the individual elements discussed above and holds that probable cause had not been established.
“[Tjhese elements should [not] be understood as entirely separate and independent requirements to be rigidly exacted in every case.” Gates, 462 U.S. at 230, 103 S.Ct. at 2328. Nowhere in its conclusion does the majority appear to apply the Gates/Panne-baker totality of the circumstances test. Instead, the opinion moves through the prongs of Aguilar-Spinelli and holds, based on an analysis of the individual factors of that test, that probable cause was not established.
B.
I believe that, based on the totality of the circumstances, there was probable cause to believe that Leftwich was engaged in criminal activity and that the search warrant for his trailer was valid.
1.
I agree with the majority that the letter, alone, does not establish probable cause.. However, the majority gives undue focus to *1275the inadequacies of the letter in order to buttress its position that there was no probable cause to search Leftwich’s residence. Its critical dissection of each component of the letter is inappropriate in a Gates/Pannebaker totality of the circumstances analysis. Indeed, as the Gates majority noted, “the line-by-line scrutiny that the dissent applies to the anonymous letter is akin to that we find inappropriate in reviewing magistrate’s decision.” Gates, 462 U.S. at 245 n. 14, 103 S.Ct. at 2335 n. 14.
Although, standing alone, the letter is not sufficient to establish probable cause, the majority’s criticism seeks to diminish further the credibility and reliability of the informant that the letter — and police corroboration— did establish. The letter provided an accurate description of Leftwich’s physical characteristics and age that was verified through driver’s license records and photographs. The letter described Leftwich’s van and license plate number that allowed police to trace him to the trailer in which he lived. Most important, the letter predicted Left-wieh’s trip to Kansas City to collect the drugs and return to Boulder.
The detail of the letter shows a basis for confirming the informant’s knowledge of the defendant and his activity. See People v. Turcotte-Schaeffer, 843 P.2d 658, 662 (Colo. 1993). In my opinion, however, it is the ability of the informant to predict future actions that should be afforded great weight in the probable cause determination. Here, the informant correctly predicted that Left-wich would travel to Kansas City on particular dates. The ability of an informant to predict future action is also an important component of probable cause determinations in Gates and other opinions. See, e.g., Draper v. United States, 358 U.S. 307, 79 S.Ct. 329, 3 L.Ed.2d 327 (1959). The majority states that “[fjacts that are easily obtained or predictions that are easily made add little to the decision of whether probable cause for a search exists.” Maj. op. at 1268. I do not believe that the facts asserted by the informant’s letter were easily obtained or the predictions easily made. Moreover, ‘“because an informant is right about some things, he is more probably right about other facts.’ ” Gates, 462 U.S. at 244, 103 S.Ct. at 2335 (quoting Spinelli, 393 U.S. at 427, 89 S.Ct. at 493-94 (White, J., concurring)).
2.
The majority bases its decision on its claim that there was no police corroboration of criminal activity by Leftwich. As noted above, the majority does not give any weight to the fact that, while Leftwich’s trailer was under surveillance, police concluded that Leftwich was visited by a convicted drug offender. In my opinion, this activity falls under the category of criminal corroboration.3 We held in People v. Turcotte-Schaeffer, 843 P.2d 658 (Colo.1993), a case decided only thirteen months ago on a unanimous vote, that police need not corroborate an informant’s information about criminal activity in order to establish probable cause, and that probable cause could be established solely through corroboration of non-criminal activity. See also People v. Paquin, 811 P.2d 394 (Colo.1991). Although the majority opinion correctly cites our ruling in Turcotte-Schaeffer, the majority does not apply to this case the principle that an informant’s allegations of criminal activity need not be corroborated. Instead, the majority opinion repeatedly faults the police for their failure to corroborate the allegations of criminal activity. Its decision that there was no probable cause in this case is grounded almost entirely on the deficiency of police corroboration of illegal activity. By doing so, the majority implicitly weakens our decision in Turcotte-Schaeffer. 4
*1276Probable cause requires only a probability of criminal activity, not an actual showing of such activity. Gates, 462 U.S. at 243 n. 13, 103 S.Ct. at 2334-35 n. 13. Here, the police corroborated all of the non-criminal information provided by the anonymous informant, including that Leftwieh travelled to Kansas City during Spring Break. By itself, this “innocent” activity would not establish probable cause. However, even “seemingly innocent activity [can become] suspicious in light of the initial tip.” Gates, 462 U.S. at 243 n. 13, 103 S.Ct. at 2334-35 n. 13. Furthermore, the police were able to conclude that a known drug offender visited Leftwich’s residence. Under a totality of the circumstances test, all of these factors establish that probable cause existed for the judge to issue the warrant in this case.
3.
This case differs little from other cases, with similar facts and levels of police corroboration, in which courts found probable cause. Probable cause existed in Gates, which also involved an anonymous letter, and where the police corroborated only the “innocent” activity, namely, the travels of the defendants. In Draper, 358 U.S. 307, 79 S.Ct. 329, 3 L.Ed.2d 327 (1959), police received a tip from a reliable informant that the defendant would be dressed a certain way and carrying a tan bag as he disembarked from a train in Denver. There was no corroboration of any criminal activity. Significantly, the police did not obtain a warrant, and probable cause was established in the context of a warrantless search. In Turcotte-Schaeffer, we found probable cause existed when a first-time informant provided information similar to the information in this case. There, the informant relayed the first name of one of the defendants, the type of automobile that person drove, and a description of the house and general location, but no address. There, as here, the police tied the automobile to the defendant through state motor vehicle registration information. Police corroborated none of the alleged criminal activity in that case. In People v. Pannebaker, 714 P.2d 904 (Colo.1986), another unanimous decision of this court, we found that probable cause existed based on the information of a first-time informant .and without police corroboration of any criminal activity. In Pannebaker, the informant related that the defendant was growing marijuana, gave a full description of the residence, and stated that the windows in the second-level “growing room” were covered with a dark window covering. The police verified this information. They also noticed the name “Panne-baker” on the mailbox in front of the house, and ran a driver’s license check on the name, from which they obtained a physical description of the defendant and learned he had been arrested for possession and distribution of marijuana.
On the question of establishing whether probable cause exists, I find little difference between the cases described above and this case. The majority finds it significant that, in Turcotte-Schaeffer, the informant was known to police. The majority does not note, however, that this was the first time the informant had cooperated with police. A part of the totality of the circumstances test is determining the reputation for veracity and reliability of the confidential informant. In my mind, there is no appreciable difference in this respect between a first-time informant in direct contact with the police and an informant who chooses to remain anonymous.
C.
Applying the totality of the circumstances test, I would find that there was probable cause for the judge to have issued the warrant in this case. An informant’s veracity and reliability, and police corroboration of the informant’s information, are all highly relevant; however, “they should be understood simply as closely intertwined issues that may usefully illuminate the commonsense, practical question whether there is ‘probable cause.’” Gates, 462 U.S. at 230, *1277103 S.Ct. at 2328. A neutral and detached judge issued a warrant in this case, and neither the majority nor the defendant argues that the judge was not neutral or detached. The courts in our system of justice have expressed a strong preference for warrants. United States v. Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102, 85 S.Ct. 741, 13 L.Ed.2d 684 (1965). “ ‘[I]n a doubtful or marginal case a search under a warrant may be sustainable where without one it would fall.’ ” Leon, 468 U.S. at 914, 104 S.Ct. at 3416 (quoting Ventresca, 380 U.S. at 106, 85 S.Ct. at 744). In Draper, the United States Supreme Court found probable cause in a situation very similar to this one, but where, significantly, police had not obtained a search warrant. Under similar facts, with a warrant, probable cause is surely established.
III.
The majority decides that there is no probable cause to support the issuance of a search warrant, and also holds that the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule does not apply to this case because it was unreasonable for the officer to believe that there was probable cause to support the warrant. I disagree. Assuming, arguendo, that probable cause did not exist, I believe that it was reasonable for the officer to rely on the warrant issued by the judge, and would hold that the good faith exception applies to this case.
The exclusionary rule is not itself a constitutional right, but instead is a judicially created means of effectuating the rights secured by the Fourth Amendment. Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 482, 96 S.Ct. 3037, 3046-47, 49 L.Ed.2d 1067 (1976). Its primary function is to deter violations of the Fourth Amendment. Id. at 486, 96 S.Ct. at 3048-49. The exclusionary rule “has never been interpreted to proscribe the introduction of illegally seized evidence in all proceedings or against all persons.” Id. Its application has been restricted to where “ ‘its remedial objectives are thought most efficaciously served.’ ” Id. at 486-87, 96 S.Ct. at 3049 (quoting United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 348, 94 S.Ct. 613, 620, 38 L.Ed.2d 561 (1974)). The exclusionary rule has been criticized for defeating the truth-finding process and keeping unimpeachable and probative evidence from the trier of fact. See, e.g., Stone, 428 U.S. at 490, 96 S.Ct. at 3050. A Fourth Amendment illegal search is unlike a Fifth Amendment Miranda violation, where the evidence itself becomes suspect because of the constitutional violation.
The United States Supreme Court formally announced the exception in United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 87 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984). The Colorado legislature enacted the good faith exception into law in section 16-3-308, 8A C.R.S. (1986).
The good faith exception is most supportable when police officers have reasonably relied on a judicially issued search warrant. Gates, 462 U.S. at 262, 103 S.Ct. at 2345 (White, J., concurring). The officer’s reliance on the probable cause determination underlying the warrant must be objectively reasonable. Leon, 468 U.S. at 922, 104 S.Ct. at 3420. An officer’s reliance is unreasonable when' the affidavit used in support of the warrant is “ ‘so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render official belief in its existence entirely unreasonable.’” Id. at 923, 104 S.Ct. at 3420-21 (quoting Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590, 611, 95 S.Ct. 2254, 2265, 45 L.Ed.2d 416 (1975) (Powell, J., concurring in part)); see also Gates, 462 U.S. at 264,103 S.Ct. at 2346 (White, J., concurring) (“[T]he good-faith exception would not apply if the material presented to the magistrate is ... so clearly lacking in probable cause that no well-trained officer could reasonably have thought that a warrant should issue.”).
In determining when a warrant was “so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render official belief in its existence entirely unreasonable,” the Leon court borrowed language from Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590, 611, 95 S.Ct. 2254, 2265, 45 L.Ed.2d 416 (1975) (Powell, J., concurring in part). In Brown, Justice Powell referred to instances that were “lacking in indicia of probable cause” as an example of a “flagrantly abusive violation,” and compared them to an arrest “effectuated as a pretext for collateral objectives.” Id. Justice Powell, and the Leon court, therefore, had in mind those extreme, flagrant situations in which police act with no *1278reasonable basis to believe they had probable cause. It is also instructive to note that Brown involved warrantless searches, without advance determination of probable cause by a judge. Since Leon involves situations in which a magistrate has found there to be probable cause, the “flagrantly abusive violation” of concern to Justice Powell is less likely to arise. It does not arise in this case.
We must consider whether a reasonably well-trained officer would have known that the search was illegal despite the judge’s authorization. Leon, 468 U.S. at 922 n. 23, 104 S.Ct. at 3420 n. 23. “In making this determination, all of the circumstances — including whether the warrant application had previously been rejected by a different magistrate — may be considered.” Id. at 922-23 n. 23, 104 S.Ct. at 3420 n. 23.
Although the fact that a judge issued a warrant is not, by itself, entirely dispositive of whether the police officer acted in good faith and whether his or her reliance on the warrant was reasonable, the Leon court suggested that the existence of a warrant plays an important role in that determination. The Leon decision cited the report of the Attorney General’s Task Force on Violent Crime:
[T]he situation in which an officer relies on a duly authorized warrant ⅛ a particularly compelling example of good faith. A warrant is a judicial mandate to an officer to conduct a search or make an arrest, and the officer has a sworn duty to carry out its provisions. Accordingly, we believe that there should be a rule which states that evidence obtained pursuant to and within the scope of a warrant is prima facie the result of good faith on the part of the officer seizing the evidence.’
Leon, 468 U.S. at 921, 104 S.Ct. at 3419 (quoting Attorney General’s Task Force on Violent Crime, Final Report (1981)). “Once the warrant issues, there is literally nothing more the policeman can do in seeking to comply with the law.” Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. at 498, 96 S.Ct. at 3054 (Burger, C.J., concurring).
The Colorado legislature has enacted a standard even more deferential to the assumption that the actions of a police officer under a warrant are reasonable. The statute states, in pertinent part:
It shall be prima facie evidence that the conduct of the peace officer was performed in the reasonable good faith belief that it was proper if there is a showing that the evidence was obtained pursuant to and within the scope of a warrant, unless the warrant was obtained through intentional and material misrepresentation.
§ 16-3-308(3)(b), 8A C.R.S. (1986). The majority omits this language from its discussion of the statute, and does not address the burden that the statute imposes on the defendant to overcome the presumption that the officer acted reasonably and in good faith. I believe that, contrary to the majority’s assertions, the Colorado statute does apply to this case and establishes a presumption that the officer’s reliance on the warrant was reasonable, a presumption that the defendant did not overcome.
The record in this case reveals that the police officer had his affidavit in support of the warrant application approved by his supervisor, the head of the narcotics division; by the police department’s legal adviser; and by the chief deputy district attorney. Each told him the affidavit was sufficient to establish probable cause in support of a warrant. Only then did he apply to the judge for a warrant, which was granted. The first judge he approached signed the warrant, the first time he was asked. This is not a case of “judge shopping,” which the court in Leon noted would be indicative of an unreasonable-reliance on the warrant.
The majority claims it was not reasonable for the officer to rely on the advice of these people, and that the officer knew or should have known the warrant was not supported by probable cause.5 I find the idea untena*1279ble that a police officer, untrained in the legal nuances of probable cause, cannot reasonably rely on advice from his supervisor, from two lawyers, one of whom was the chief deputy district attorney, and from a judge, who was also an attorney. Yet, the majority claims that the officer knew or should have known that the warrant was not supported by probable cause. Absent any showing of bad faith on the part of the officer,6 I fail to see how the majority would expect a police officer to know there is no probable cause in a given situation if the officer cannot reasonably rely on the legal advice of his superiors, the district attorney’s office, and a neutral and detached judge.7
I disagree with the conclusion reached by the majority on page 1271 of its opinion, which states that, “[f]rom the time Detective Weiler received the letter until he prepared the affidavit, Detective Weiler, the members of the Boulder Police Department, and the District Attorney doubted whether probable cause existed to obtain a warrant.” Maj. op. at 1272. I find nothing in the record to suggest that any of these parties had doubts that probable cause existed. The officer’s unrefuted testimony was that all of these individuals approved the affidavit he submitted to the judge and believed that probable cause had been established. Earlier in the opinion, the majority states: “The Deputy District Attorney advised Detective Weiler that the affidavit presented a close case and that a judge might not sign it.” Maj. op. at -. However, the full statement of the chief deputy district attorney at the suppression hearing was: “I think what I confided to the officer was I thought that the facts were very close to the point which a judge might not sign it, that reasonable minds could differ on that in essence.... I did sign off on the warrant for the officer claiming my belief there was probable cause.”
The police officer’s supervisor, the legal adviser to the police department, the chief deputy district attorney, and the judge all believed that probable cause existed. I cannot conclude, as the majority has, that the officer acted unreasonably in his belief that there was probable cause to support the warrant, after the approval of his supervisor, two lawyers, and a judge.
IV.
The trial court applied the incorrect standard of review to the judge’s decision that probable cause supported the issuance of a search warrant. A reviewing court does not review a judge’s determination of probable cause de novo; the determination is entitled to great deference. Spinelli 393 U.S. at 410, 89 S.Ct. at 584. ‘We have repeatedly said that after-the-fact scrutiny by courts of the sufficiency of an affidavit should not take the form of de novo review.” Gates, 462 U.S. at 236, 103 S.Ct. at 2331. Reasonable minds may differ on the question of whether a particular affidavit establishes probable *1280cause. United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 914, 104 S.Ct. 3406, 3416, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1983). “Doubts must be resolved in favor of magistrates’ determinations of probable cause.” People v. Abeyta, 795 P.2d 1324, 1327 (Colo.1990). The task of a reviewing court is to ensure that a judge had a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed. Gates, 462 U.S. at 238-39, 103 S.Ct. at 2332-33.
The record reveals that the district court inappropriately reviewed the probable cause determination de novo and substituted its own judgment as to whether probable cause existed. In the district court’s oral ruling, the judge stated: “I absolutely cannot find that when a particular described person gets in a particular described car and takes a trip to Kansas City over spring break, I’m feeling highly suspicious and feeling his conduct is indicative of criminal behavior.”
The Gates court provided examples in which a reviewing court would find no substantial basis for a magistrate’s finding of probable cause. They involved “bare bones” affidavits that supported warrants. The majority concluded that the affidavit in this case was of the “bare bones” type. However, the majority misinterprets the United States Su-‘ preme Court’s characterization of “bare bones” affidavits. According to that court, a “bare bones” affidavit is one supported by wholly conclusory statements that are not corroborated. Gates, 462 U.S. at 239, 103 S.Ct. at 2332-33. In Nathanson v. United States, 290 U.S. 41, 54 S.Ct. 11, 78 L.Ed. 159 (1933), the affiant swore that “ ‘he has cause to suspect and does believe’ ” that liquor was illegally brought into the United States. Gates, 462 U.S. at 239, 103 S.Ct. at 2332-33 (quoting Nathanson v. United States, 290 U.S. 41, 54 S.Ct. 11, 78 L.Ed. 159 (1933)). Similarly in Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 84 S.Ct. 1509, 12 L.Ed.2d 723 (1964), a warrant was issued solely on an officer’s statement that “ ‘[ajffiants have received reliable information from a credible person and do believe’ that heroin is stored in a home.” Gates, 462 U.S. at 239, 103 S.Ct. at 2332-33 (quoting Aguilar, 378 U.S. at 109, 84 S.Ct. at 1511). The affidavit tendered in this case does not resemble the affidavits in these other examples. It is not a “bare bones” affidavit because it does not consist of wholly conclusory statements and because it was supported by facts and by corroboration of those facts. It provides a substantial basis for the judge’s finding of probable cause.
Accordingly, I believe we should defer to the judge’s finding that probable cause was established in this case.
V.
This court, and others, including the United States Supreme Court, have sought to limit the application of the exclusionary rule to situations in which it is used to achieve deterrence. In these situations, the police have either acted in bad faith or in the objectively unreasonable belief that probable cause existed for their actions. “We ... conclude that suppression of evidence obtained pursuant to a warrant should be ordered ... only in those unusual cases in which exclusion will further the [deterrence] purposes of the exclusionary rule.” Leon, 468 U.S. at 918, 104 S.Ct. at 3418. “The policy of deterrence is not furthered if the police believe in good faith that their conduct is lawful and reasonable.” People v. Sporleder, 666 P.2d 135, 150 (Colo.1983) (Erickson, J., dissenting).
If there was any error in this case, it was committed by the judge who reviewed the affidavit, not by the police officer who prepared it. Given there was no showing of bad faith on the part of the police department, the majority inappropriately places the blame on the officer, not the judge. “It is the responsibility of the judge, and not the officer, to examine an affidavit to insure that it complies with constitutional requirements.” People v. Deitchman, 695 P.2d 1146, 1154-55 (Colo.1985) (Erickson, J., concurring).
Punishing the police officer for the judge’s mistake will not further the policy of deterrence. “To suppress the evidence in this ease would serve only to punish the detective for the judge’s error and would not contribute to the deterrence of unconstitutional police activity.” Id. at 1155. “Penalizing the officer for the magistrate’s error, rather than his own, cannot logically contribute to the *1281deterrence of Fourth Amendment violations.” Leon, 468 U.S. at 921, 104 S.Ct. at 3419. Especially when the officer’s conduct is objectively reasonable, as I believe it was, suppressing the evidence will not further the purposes of the exclusionary rule. See Leon, 468 U.S. at 919-20, 104 S.Ct. at 3418-19. When a magistrate makes errors of this nature or serves as a rubber stamp for police, the Leon court suggested that “closer supervision or removal [of the magistrate] provides a more effective remedy than the exclusionary rule.” Id. at 917-18 n. 18, 104 S.Ct. at 3418 n. 18. I do not believe that suppressing the evidence in this case will deter future mistakes by police officers.
VI.
For reasons discussed above, I believe that this case fits squarely within section 16-3-308. The majority dismisses the application of the statute to this case in fewer than two pages, stating that, because the officer’s belief was not reasonable, his actions do not fall under the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule.
However, I believe the statute requires more analysis. “Good faith mistake” is defined in the statute as “a reasonable judgmental error concerning the existence of facts or law which if true would be sufficient to constitute probable cause.” § 16-3-308(2)(a) (emphasis added). I have already discussed the statutory presumption of good faith that exists when a judge has issued a warrant. In amending the statute to include mistakes of law, the legislature sought to address our ruling in People v. Quintero, 657 P.2d 948 (Colo.1983). In Quintero, the prosecution claimed that an officer’s mistake that probable cause existed was covered under the good faith exception of section 16-3-308. We disagreed and ruled that the statute only addressed mistakes of fact, not of law. The legislature then amended the statute to specifically include mistakes of law. I believe that the statute should be applied in this case and the officer’s belief that there was probable cause, if it was mistaken, accorded an exception to the exclusionary rule under section 16-3-308.
The district court ruled that section 16 — 3— 308 did not apply to this ease because of our decision in Quintero. However, the district court apparently did not realize that the statute had been amended since our holding in that case, with the goal of including mistakes of law as well as mistakes of fact. The district court’s reliance on the holding of Quintero was in error; however, this error was not addressed by the majority opinion.
VII.
I believe that the warrant issued by the judge was supported by probable cause. Even if probable cause had not been established, the search should be upheld under the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule, enunciated by the United States Supreme Court in Leon and by the Colorado legislature in section 16-3-308, because it was reasonable for the police officer to believe that probable cause did exist.
I am authorized to say that Chief Justice ROVIRA joins in this dissent.

. The majority bases the thrust of its opinion on its assertion that there was no corroboration by police of criminal activity, only of “innocent” acts. The majority apparently does not believe that the presence of a known drug offender's car at the residence of the defendant is entitled to be considered in the Gates "totality of the circumstances” calculus. I disagree.

. Although these factors are part of the Gates test as well as the Aguilar-Spinelli test, and although the majority opinion makes reference to Gates throughout its analysis, I do not believe that the United States Supreme Court in Gates, nor this court in Pannebaker, intended the kind of ritualistic application of these factors that is found in the majority opinion.

. The majority cites Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40, 88 S.Ct. 1889, 20 L.Ed.2d 917 (1968), for the proposition that police may not establish probable cause based solely on the fact that the defendant has had conversations with known narcotics addicts. I agree. I do not believe that the police in this case would be able to claim there was probable cause simply on the fact that Leftwich’s trailer was visited by a known drug offender. I conclude only that this fact is one element of the totality of the circumstances test and is thus worthy of consideration.

. I disagree with the majority's reliance on People v. Taube, 864 P.2d 123 (Colo.1993), for the implication that the police’s failure to corroborate allegations of Leftwich’s criminal conduct undermined the determination of probable cause. *1276Taube arose from a violation of the Nuisance Act in which police entered a residence, without a warrant, to seize property for inventory purposes under the Nuisance Act. We held that the Nui-sanee Act did not authorize a warrantless entry into a person’s home to inventory the home’s contents.

. This is not a case like Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 106 S.Ct. 1092, 89 L.Ed.2d 271 (1986), quoted and relied on extensively by the majority. There, an officer claimed it was objectively reasonable to believe that probable cause existed, by relying solely on the fact that a magistrate had issued a warrant. The Supreme Court found that an officer should not rely solely on the fact that a warrant was issued. Here, the officer did not merely rely on the magistrate’s decision. *1279Rather, he exercised his professional judgment, as was recommended in Briggs, and sought the advice of his supervisor, the legal adviser to the police department, and the chief deputy district attorney.

. The trial court specifically found that the officer had not acted in bad faith when he obtained the warrant.

. The majority cites United States v. Baker, 894 F.2d 1144 (10th Cir.1990), for the proposition that a police officer may not rely on a magistrate’s finding of probable cause. In Baker, a county deputy sheriff, after unsuccessful efforts to contact a federal magistrate to obtain a search warrant for a residence within Indian tribal land, obtained a warrant from a state court judge, but only after disclosing to the state court his doubts as to jurisdiction on the Indian reservation. The Tenth Circuit held that execution of the invalid warrant was not within the good faith exception. The majority misinterprets the precedent of that case. Because it held that the police officer should have known that the search was not supported by probable cause, the court ruled that it "need not and [did] not decide precisely what favorable weight may be given to an officer's reliance on a judicial official’s opinion.” Id, at 1149 n. 3.
I believe the majority makes an unacceptable leap of logic when it reasons that, because courts have ruled that a police officer may not rely solely on the opinion of the magistrate on probable cause, the officer would also be unreasonable in relying on the opinions of his superiors in the police department, on attorneys in the police department, and on attorneys in the district attorney’s office. Maj. op. at 1269-1270 n. 11. Such a conclusion will result in the obliteration of the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule.