The Fifth Circuit affirmed suppression of evidence seized from an apartment tied to the defendant, holding that the affidavit for the search warrant was “bare-bones” and that the good-faith exception did not apply. The panel stressed the affidavit’s failure to satisfy the Fourth Amendment’s “nexus” requirement, finding that probable cause to arrest the defendant for brandishing a distinctive green pistol at a Waffle House did not supply probable cause to search his girlfriend’s apartment two weeks later without facts tying that gun (or any evidence from the Waffle House incident) to that address. Because the affidavit offered only a conclusory belief that items “related to” the incident would be found there—and no observations, tips, corroboration, or explanation why the firearm would likely be at that location—reliance on the warrant was not objectively reasonable, and probable cause was lacking.
The affidavit described the Waffle House altercation and identified Wilson, his vehicle, and the pistol with a drum magazine; it also noted he was seen at his girlfriend’s apartment complex on another date. The affidavit identified his girlfriend’s address and a catch-all list of items “believed to be located” there (firearms, ammunition, backpack, etc.). The majority emphasized that the search of a residence requires allegations tying evidence of the alleged offense to the residence. General assumptions that “people keep things at home” were insufficient here, particularly with a two-week gap and no showing the gun was ever present at the residence. On that record, the affidavit was “so lacking in indicia of probable cause” that Leon’s good-faith exception could not save the search, and the warrant failed on probable cause as well.
The majority opinion is notable for Judge Willett’s opening remarks reciting criticism of the the Fourth Amendment’s exclusionary rule “as a blunt, judge-made windfall that rewards the guilty, punishes the innocent, and sacrifices truth for symbolism” before concluding that, “however unwise some may consider it, the rule remains binding precedent, and we are duty-bound to apply it.” Applying the rule, the majority opinion’s introduction ends with strong language–
“The Fourth Amendment does not license fishing expeditions, and this bare-bones warrant rested on little more than conjecture—so bereft of concrete facts that officers could not reasonably believe probable cause existed. The exclusionary rule calls such a thing by its name: a hunch dressed in paperwork.”
Dissenting, Judge Ho would have applied the good faith exception. Relying on Fifth Circuit precedents recognizing common-sense inferences about keeping personal possessions at home (and the short distance between the Waffle House and the apartment), he argued officers could reasonably believe the firearm and related items would be at the residence even if the affidavit did not spell out that inference expressly.
Click here to read the opinion.