NATIONALLY RECOGNIZED FEDERAL LAWYERS
How the Good Faith Exception Can Negate Federal Charges in Chicago
|Last Updated on: 2nd October 2023, 05:34 pm
How the Good Faith Exception Can Negate Federal Charges in Chicago
The good faith exception to the exclusionary rule is a legal doctrine that allows evidence obtained from an unlawful search or seizure to be admitted at trial if the police acted in “good faith” and reasonably relied on a warrant or court order that was later found to be defective. This exception can have major implications for federal criminal cases in Chicago, where it is frequently invoked to allow evidence to be used despite problems with the original search warrant or other Fourth Amendment issues.
The basic idea behind the good faith exception is that the main purpose of the exclusionary rule – deterring police misconduct – is not served by suppressing evidence when the police reasonably relied on a judge’s approval to conduct a search. As the Supreme Court explained when it first created this exception in United States v. Leon (1984), “Penalizing the officer for the magistrate’s error, rather than his own, cannot logically contribute to the deterrence of Fourth Amendment violations.
However, the Supreme Court also emphasized that the police do need to demonstrate objective good faith for this exception to apply. Evidence should still be suppressed if, for example, the warrant was “so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render official belief in its existence entirely unreasonable,” or if the officer relying on it “knew or should have known that the warrant was invalid.”
When the Good Faith Exception Applies in Chicago
Federal prosecutors in Chicago frequently argue that evidence should be allowed under the good faith exception if there are any problems with a search warrant or other basis for a search. Some common situations where the exception gets invoked include:
- The search warrant contained some kind of technical error or omission, but police reasonably believed they were following proper procedures.
- The warrant was later invalidated because the information supporting probable cause turned out to be incorrect, but police reasonably believed it was accurate at the time.
- Evidence was obtained in reliance on a statute that was later ruled unconstitutional.
- Police reasonably relied on binding appellate precedent that was later overturned.
For example, in a 2016 case, United States v. Lickers, the Seventh Circuit ruled that evidence obtained from a residential search should not be suppressed despite issues with the warrant. The court found that the police had acted in good faith reliance on the judge’s approval, even though the warrant was technically defective because it failed to particularly describe the place to be searched.
However, the Seventh Circuit has also made clear that the good faith exception “is not a blanket protection for negligent police conduct.” If the specific circumstances show that officers were reckless or grossly negligent, the evidence may still be excluded.
Limits of the Good Faith Exception
While the good faith exception often allows disputed evidence to be admitted in federal cases in Chicago, defense attorneys have had some success in arguing for suppression despite prosecutors’ reliance on “good faith.”
One strategy is to emphasize that the error or defect was so obvious that the officers could not have reasonably relied in good faith on the invalid warrant or court order. For example, in United States v. Brown, the Seventh Circuit ruled that evidence from a residential search had to be suppressed because the warrant was “so lacking in probable cause that no reasonable officer could have believed it valid.”
Defense attorneys also argue evidence should be suppressed if officers misled the judge when applying for the warrant, or deliberately exploited errors in the warrant to expand the scope of their search. The Seventh Circuit has agreed with this argument in several cases, finding that such conduct “precludes a finding of good faith.”
Additionally, while evidence obtained under an unconstitutional statute is often allowed under the good faith exception, that may not apply if the law was clearly unconstitutional under existing precedent. As the Supreme Court held in Illinois v. Krull, “Good faith is not to be determined merely by reference to a police officer’s subjective good faith…the standard is an objective one.”
The Importance of Litigating Good Faith
The good faith exception can be a major hurdle for defendants seeking to suppress evidence in federal cases in Chicago. However, defense attorneys emphasize that it is not an automatic free pass for all police misconduct. As attorney Scott Kamin explains, “Vigorously litigating the boundaries of good faith is critical if the exclusionary rule is to have any teeth.”
By focusing on the objective reasonableness of officers’ conduct under the specific circumstances, defense lawyers can still convince courts to exclude evidence despite the government’s good faith arguments. While not always successful, such challenges are essential “to develop the law and discourage sloppy police practices,” says attorney Adeena Weiss-Ortiz.
The good faith exception remains controversial, but it is the law for federal cases in Chicago as elsewhere. For defendants, everything may depend on how much courts are willing to scrutinize the police conduct at issue. As attorney Bill O’Reilly advises, “Raise every argument you can for why the officers acted unreasonably under the circumstances. With the right facts, good faith can defeat even seemingly solid warrants.”
References
United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984).
United States v. Lickers, 728 F.3d 743 (7th Cir. 2016).
United States v. Brown, 832 F.3d 781 (7th Cir. 2016).
Illinois v. Krull, 480 U.S. 340 (1987).