The Good Faith Exception

The Good Faith Exception and Indiana Law by Attorney Jeff Cardella

If you are in need of a top rated criminal defense attorney in Indiana, call me at 317-695-7700 for a free consultation or email me. I have been a criminal attorney in Indiana for my entire legal career, with nearly two decades of experience, and taught criminal law at the Indiana University School of Law. I have extensive experience with the Good Faith Exception and taught this as part of my course at the law school. The good faith exception, established by the U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Leon (1984), allows evidence obtained through a defective warrant to be admitted in court if law enforcement officers acted in good faith, reasonably believing the warrant was valid. This exception balances deterring police misconduct with ensuring justice isn’t undermined by technical errors, such as a judge’s mistake. This topic arises often when a search is based on a warrant, and is discussed more below. 

Summary of the Good Faith Exception to the Warrant Requirement

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures, generally requiring law enforcement to obtain a warrant supported by probable cause, issued by a neutral magistrate, and specifying the place to be searched and items or persons to be seized. The good faith exception, established in United States v. Leon (1984), allows evidence obtained through a defective warrant to be admitted if officers acted in good faith, reasonably believing the warrant was valid. This exception mitigates the exclusionary rule, which typically suppresses evidence obtained unlawfully, by recognizing that excluding evidence due to technical errors (e.g., a judge’s mistake) may not serve justice. However, the good faith exception does not apply in the following circumstances:

  1. The warrant was based on false information knowingly or recklessly supplied by an affiant.

  2. The warrant is facially deficient, lacking essential elements for validity.

  3. The affidavit supporting the warrant lacks indicia of probable cause.

  4. The issuing judge or magistrate abandoned their neutral and detached judicial role (Cutter v. State, 646 N.E.2d 704, 714-15 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995)).

The Warrant Requirement

The Fourth Amendment mandates that searches and seizures be reasonable, typically requiring a warrant issued upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. This requirement ensures judicial oversight to prevent arbitrary intrusions into privacy. Probable cause exists when there is a fair probability that evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place. Without a valid warrant, evidence is generally inadmissible under the exclusionary rule, which aims to deter police misconduct by excluding unlawfully obtained evidence from trial.

Exceptions to the Warrant Requirement

Several exceptions permit warrantless searches or seizures under specific conditions:

  • Consent: If an individual voluntarily consents to a search, no warrant is required, provided the consent is not coerced.

  • Search Incident to Arrest: Police may search a person and their immediate surroundings during a lawful arrest to ensure safety and preserve evidence.

  • Plain View Doctrine: Items in plain view of an officer who is lawfully present may be seized without a warrant if their incriminating nature is immediately apparent.

  • Exigent Circumstances: Emergencies, such as imminent danger, hot pursuit, or risk of evidence destruction, justify warrantless searches.

  • Automobile Exception: Due to the mobility of vehicles, police may search a vehicle without a warrant if there is probable cause to believe it contains evidence of a crime.

  • Stop and Frisk: During a brief investigatory stop, officers may conduct a limited pat-down for weapons if they have reasonable suspicion of criminal activity and danger.

  • Good Faith Exception: Evidence obtained under a defective warrant may be admissible if officers reasonably relied on its validity.

Key Cases with Legal Analysis

United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984)

  • Facts: Police in California obtained a warrant to search Leon’s residence based on an informant’s tip and surveillance indicating drug trafficking. The warrant was later found to lack sufficient probable cause due to deficiencies in the affidavit. During the search, police seized drugs and other evidence, which Leon sought to suppress.

  • Legal Issue: Does the exclusionary rule apply when officers rely in good faith on a warrant later found to be invalid?

  • Analysis: The Supreme Court reasoned that the exclusionary rule’s purpose is to deter police misconduct, not to address errors by neutral magistrates. Suppressing evidence in cases of reasonable officer reliance on a facially valid warrant would not serve this purpose. The Court established the good faith exception, noting that the magistrate’s error in finding probable cause did not reflect police misconduct. The exception does not apply if the warrant is based on false information, is facially deficient, lacks probable cause, or involves a biased magistrate.

  • Holding: The Court held that evidence obtained in reasonable reliance on a facially valid warrant is admissible under the good faith exception, even if the warrant is later found invalid for lack of probable cause.

  • Relevance: Leon is the foundational case for the good faith exception, emphasizing that technical judicial errors should not lead to evidence suppression when officers act reasonably.

Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135 (2009)

  • Facts: Herring was arrested based on a warrant listed in a police database, which was later found to have been recalled due to a clerical error. During a search incident to the arrest, police found drugs and a firearm. Herring moved to suppress the evidence, arguing the arrest was unlawful due to the invalid warrant.

  • Legal Issue: Does the good faith exception apply when police rely on erroneous information in a database?

  • Analysis: The Supreme Court extended the good faith exception to cases involving negligent errors by police or third parties, provided the error was not deliberate or reckless. The Court found that the database error was an isolated bookkeeping mistake, not systemic misconduct, and suppressing the evidence would not deter future errors. The decision emphasized that the exclusionary rule applies only when suppression would meaningfully deter culpable police conduct.

  • Holding: The Court held that evidence obtained from a search incident to an arrest based on a negligent database error is admissible under the good faith exception.

  • Relevance: Herring expands the good faith exception to include reliance on administrative errors, clarifying that only deliberate or reckless misconduct justifies suppression.

Cutter v. State, 646 N.E.2d 704 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995)

  • Facts: Indiana police obtained a warrant to search Cutter’s property for evidence of drug activity. The warrant was challenged as lacking probable cause due to deficiencies in the affidavit. Cutter argued that the good faith exception should not apply because the affidavit was insufficient and the magistrate failed to act neutrally.

  • Legal Issue: Does the good faith exception apply when a warrant lacks probable cause or the magistrate fails to act as a neutral and detached judicial officer?

  • Analysis: The Indiana Court of Appeals held that the good faith exception does not apply if the affidavit is so lacking in probable cause that no reasonable officer would rely on it or if the magistrate abandons their neutral role (e.g., by acting as an advocate for the police). The court evaluated whether the officers’ reliance on the warrant was objectively reasonable, emphasizing the need for a minimal showing of probable cause and a neutral judicial process.

  • Holding: The court held that the good faith exception does not apply when the affidavit lacks indicia of probable cause or the magistrate fails to maintain neutrality, though the specific outcome depended on the case’s facts.

  • Relevance: Cutter provides Indiana-specific guidance on the limits of the good faith exception, reinforcing that it cannot salvage evidence from fundamentally flawed warrants or biased judicial processes.

Ransom v. State, 741 N.E.2d 419 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000)

  • Facts: The defendant encountered a police car on a narrow road and backed his vehicle around a corner to allow the officer to pass. The officer stopped the defendant for driving in reverse, mistakenly believing it was unlawful. The defendant appeared nervous, prompting the officer to request consent to search the vehicle for weapons, during which a handgun was found. The defendant was charged with carrying a handgun without a license and moved to suppress the evidence, arguing the stop was unlawful.

  • Legal Issue: Can the good faith exception apply to a search following an unlawful traffic stop based on an officer’s mistaken belief about the law?

  • Analysis: The Indiana Court of Appeals determined that driving in reverse is not inherently unlawful, and an officer’s mistaken belief about what constitutes a violation does not qualify as good faith. The court stated, “Although a law enforcement officer’s good faith belief that a person has committed a violation will justify a traffic stop, an officer’s mistaken belief about what constitutes a violation does not amount to good faith. Such discretion is not constitutionally permissible” (Ransom at 422). The stop was unconstitutional, and the consent to search was tainted by the unlawful stop, as the State failed to demonstrate a break in the causal connection between the stop and the evidence obtained.

  • Holding: The court held that the evidence obtained from the search was inadmissible because the traffic stop was based on an erroneous belief about the law, and the good faith exception did not apply.

  • Relevance: Ransom clarifies that the good faith exception does not extend to officers’ mistakes of law, distinguishing such errors from mistakes of fact or judicial errors covered by Leon.

Contact My Office for a Free Consultation

Call me for a free consultation to discuss your case.

Phone: 317-695-7700

Email: jeffcardella@cardellalawoffice.com

I handle cases throughout all of Indiana, including the Federal District Courts and the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. The main geographic areas that I practice law in are:

DISCLAIMER – The information contained on this website is provided for educational and informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice or as an offer to perform legal services on any subject matter. The content of this website contains general information and may not reflect current legal developments or information. The information is not guaranteed to be correct, complete, or current. We make no warranty, expressed or implied, about the accuracy or reliability of the information at this website or at any other website to which it is linked. Recipients of content from this site should not act or refrain from acting on the basis of any information included in the site without seeking appropriate legal advice on the particular facts and circumstances at issue from an Indiana Criminal Defense attorney or an attorney licensed in the recipient’s state. Nothing herein is intended to create an attorney-client relationship and shall not be construed as legal advice. This is not an offer to represent you, nor is it intended to create an attorney-client relationship.