significantly lesser standard in Virginia

2025The test employed in a good faith analysis is “considerably different” from that of probable cause in that it is “a significantly lesser standard than a showing of a ‘substantial basis’ for upholding a magistrate’s determination of probable cause.” Adams v. Commonwealth, 275 Va. 260, 274 (2008).

2024However, the Supreme Court has emphasized, “The showing of an ‘objectively reasonable belief’ that probable cause existed under the good-faith exception is a significantly lesser standard than a showing of a ‘substantial basis’ for upholding a magistrate’s determination of probable cause.” Adams v. Commonwealth, 275 Va. 260, 274 (2008).

2024This Court has held, “[A]s long as there is some indicia of probable cause in the underlying affidavit, we will apply the good faith exception as long as a reasonable police officer, after assessing the facts set forth in the affidavit, could have believed the warrant was valid.” Anzualda v. Commonwealth, 44 Va. App. 764, 781 (2005) (en banc) (emphasis in original).

2019“The showing of an ‘objectively reasonable belief’ that probable cause existed under the good-faith exception is a significantly lesser standard than a showing of a ‘substantial basis’ for upholding a magistrate’s determination of probable cause.” Adams v. Commonwealth, 275 Va. 260, 274 (2008); see also Anzualda v. Commonwealth, 44 Va. App. 764, 781 (2005) (en banc) (noting that ‘“no substantial basis’ does not automatically equate to ‘no indicia of probable cause’”).

2019“In fact, Leon states that the third circumstance[, the one upon which Peyton relies,] prevents a finding of objective good faith only when an officer’s affidavit is ‘so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render official belief in its existence entirely unreasonable.’” Adams, 275 Va. at 274 (quoting United States v. Bynum, 293 F.3d 192, 195 (4th Cir. 2002)).

2009“In fact, Leon states that the third circumstance[, relied on by appellant here,] prevents a finding of objective good faith only when an officer’s affidavit is ‘so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render official belief in its existence entirely unreasonable.’” Adams, 275 Va. at 274 , 657 S.E.2d at 95 (quoting United States v. Bynum, 293 F.3d 192, 195 (4th Cir. 2002) (quoting Leon, 468 U.S. at 923 )) (citations omitted). “‘“Entirely unreasonable” is not a phrase often used by the Supreme Court.’ An officer also is not required to go behind a magistrate’s probable cause determination

2025Unlike a probable cause review, where a court may consider only “those sworn, written facts stated in the search warrant affidavit,” a good-faith analysis considers the totality of the circumstances, “including what [the executing police officers] knew but did not include in [the] affidavit.” Id. at 270 (alterations in original) (quoting United States v. Martin, 833 F.2d 752, 756 (8th Cir. 1987)).

2024In any event, the totality of all of these facts provided the officers with at least the requisite “some nexus between the evidence sought and the place to be searched.” Cunningham, 49 Va. App. at 619 (emphasis added). -8- As the Virginia Supreme Court has held, “The showing of an ‘objectively reasonable belief’ that probable cause existed under the good-faith exception is a significantly lesser standard than a showing of a ‘substantial basis’ for upholding a magistrate’s determination of probable cause.” Adams, 275 Va. at 274 .

2009“In fact, Leon states that the third circumstance[, relied on by appellant here,] prevents a finding of objective good faith only when an officer’s affidavit is ‘so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render official belief in its existence entirely unreasonable.’” Adams, 275 Va. at 274 , 657 S.E.2d at 95 (quoting United States v. Bynum, 293 F.3d 192, 195 (4th Cir. 2002) (quoting Leon, 468 U.S. at 923 )) (citations omitted). “‘“Entirely unreasonable” is not a phrase often used by the Supreme Court.’ An officer also is not required to go behind a magistrate’s probable cause determination

2008See United States v. Hython, 443 F.3d 480 , 484 (6th Cir.2006) ("The showing required to establish that reliance was `objectively reasonable' is less than the `substantial basis' showing required to establish probable cause.") (quoting United States v. Carpenter, . 360 F.3d 591 , 595 (6th Cir.2004)).

2008See United States v. Hython, 443 F.3d 480 , 484 (6th Cir.2006) ("The showing required to establish that reliance was `objectively reasonable' is less than the `substantial basis' showing required to establish probable cause.") (quoting United States v. Carpenter, . 360 F.3d 591 , 595 (6th Cir.2004)).