good faith exception in Florida

2024See United States v. Morton, 46 F.4th 331 , 338 (5th Cir. 2022) ("Judgment calls in close cases are precisely when the good-faith rule prevents suppression based on after-the-fact reassessment of a probable-cause determination." (citing United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 914 (1984))).

2024"The rationale behind the good faith exception is that the exclusionary rule 'is designed to deter police misconduct rather than to punish the errors of judges and magistrates.' " State v. McGill, 125 So. 3d 343, 352 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013) (quoting Leon, 468 U.S. at 916 ).

2025When officers reasonably rely upon binding appellate precedent to conduct a search, the search qualifies as a good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule "even when that appellate precedent is later overruled and the search is deemed to be unconstitutional." Carpenter v. State, 228 So. 3d 535, 538 (Fla. 2017) (citing Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229, 232 (2011)); see also Baxter, 389 So. 3d at 812 ("[O]bjectively reasonable reliance on binding precedent is 'blameless police conduct' that 'comes within the good-faith exception and is not properly subject to the exclusionary rule.' " (quot

2025When officers reasonably rely upon binding appellate precedent to conduct a search, the search qualifies as a good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule "even when that appellate precedent is later overruled and the search is deemed to be unconstitutional." Carpenter v. State, 228 So. 3d 535, 538 (Fla. 2017) (citing Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229, 232 (2011)); see also Baxter, 389 So. 3d at 812 ("[O]bjectively reasonable reliance on binding precedent is 'blameless police conduct' that 'comes within the good-faith exception and is not properly subject to the exclusionary rule.' " (quot

2024Given the wholesale absence of any nexus, we held that the good faith exception was inapplicable, adding that "[w]here, as here, the supporting affidavit fails to establish probable cause to justify a search, Florida courts refuse to apply the good faith exception." Id. (first citing Getreu v. State, 578 So. 2d 412 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); and then citing Bonilla v. State, 579 So. 2d 802 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)).

2021See Sanchez v. State, 141 So. 3d 1281, 1287 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (holding that the good faith exception was inapplicable where "an objectively reasonable officer would have known that the affidavit was insufficient to establish probable cause for the search" (quoting Gonzalez v. State, 38 So. 3d 226, 230 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010))); Garcia v. State, 872 So. 2d 326, 330 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) ("Where, as here, the supporting affidavit fails to establish probable cause to justify a search, Florida courts refuse to apply the good faith exception."). 8 Because the affidavit in support of the search warrant fai

2022Id. at 919–20 [ ]; see also State v. Watt, 946 So. 2d 108, 110 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (“In order to reject the application of the good faith exception in this case, we would need to conclude that an objectively reasonable police officer would have a better understanding of the law of search and seizure and probable cause than did the trial judge who issued the warrant.”). 7 State v. McGill, 125 So. 3d 343 , 351–52 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013).

2017Cf. State v. Watt, 946 So.2d 108, 110 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (“In order to reject the application of the good faith exception in this case, we would need to conclude that an objectively reasonable police officer would have a better understanding of the law of search and seizure and probable cause than did the trial judge who issued the warrant.”).

2024"The rationale behind the good faith exception is that the exclusionary rule 'is designed to deter police misconduct rather than to punish the errors of judges and magistrates.' " State v. McGill, 125 So. 3d 343, 352 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013) (quoting Leon, 468 U.S. at 916 ).

2024See McGill, 125 So. 3d at 350–51 (expressing concern that this "unfortunate language" in Garcia may have misled the trial court "in its understanding of the good faith exception"); Wingate v. State, 289 So. 3d 566 , 570 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020) (rejecting the defendant's reliance on "[t]his portion of Garcia," which "misconstrues the Leon rule and the few instances where it is inapplicable").

2021Further, Florida courts have consistently applied the good faith exception when the warrant is “regular on its face and the affidavit upon which it was based was not so lacking in indicia of probable cause that the officer executing the warrant could not with reasonable objectivity rely in good faith on the magistrate's probable cause determination and on the technical sufficiency of the warrant.” Crain v. State, 914 So. 2d 1015, 1024 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (citing State v. Harris, 629 So. 2d 983, 984 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)); State v. Emanuel, 153 So. 2d 839 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963) (holding an arrest war

2017"The commentary to the 1982 amendment states that the amendment was necessary to modify the exclusionary rule [in Florida] and to allow adherence by the Florida courts to the good faith exception adopted by the federal courts,” Crain v. State, 914 So.2d 1015, 1022-23 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (en banc).

2025When officers reasonably rely upon binding appellate precedent to conduct a search, the search qualifies as a good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule "even when that appellate precedent is later overruled and the search is deemed to be unconstitutional." Carpenter v. State, 228 So. 3d 535, 538 (Fla. 2017) (citing Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229, 232 (2011)); see also Baxter, 389 So. 3d at 812 ("[O]bjectively reasonable reliance on binding precedent is 'blameless police conduct' that 'comes within the good-faith exception and is not properly subject to the exclusionary rule.' " (quot

2023I, § 12, Fla. Const. (2020). (“In response, the governor, attorney general, state prosecutors, and the law enforcement community supported a joint resolution in the 1982 Regular Session, which would have engrossed a good faith exception onto the constitutional exclusionary rule.”); see Carpenter, 228 So. 3d at 543 n.3 (Lawson, J., dissenting) (“The commentary to the 1982 amendment states that the amendment was necessary to modify the exclusionary rule [in Florida] and to allow adherence by the Florida courts to the good faith exception adopted by the federal courts.”) (alteration in original)

2024See, e.g., Smitherman v. State, 342 So. 3d 685 , 688–89 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022) (concluding that the good faith exception was inapplicable given the affidavit's wholesale failure to establish a nexus between the suspected criminal activity and the premises to be searched); Chery v. State, 331 So. 3d 789 , 792 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021) (concluding that the good faith exception was inapplicable given that the affidavit was devoid of facts to establish that the affiant had personal knowledge of the reliability of the informant or to independently corroborate the information supplied by the informant); Gonzal

2021See Sanchez v. State, 141 So. 3d 1281, 1287 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (holding that the good faith exception was inapplicable where "an objectively reasonable officer would have known that the affidavit was insufficient to establish probable cause for the search" (quoting Gonzalez v. State, 38 So. 3d 226, 230 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010))); Garcia v. State, 872 So. 2d 326, 330 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) ("Where, as here, the supporting affidavit fails to establish probable cause to justify a search, Florida courts refuse to apply the good faith exception."). 8 Because the affidavit in support of the search warrant fai

2021Further, Florida courts have consistently applied the good faith exception when the warrant is “regular on its face and the affidavit upon which it was based was not so lacking in indicia of probable cause that the officer executing the warrant could not with reasonable objectivity rely in good faith on the magistrate's probable cause determination and on the technical sufficiency of the warrant.” Crain v. State, 914 So. 2d 1015, 1024 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (citing State v. Harris, 629 So. 2d 983, 984 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)); State v. Emanuel, 153 So. 2d 839 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963) (holding an arrest war

2005Moreover, this court has consistently applied the good faith exception when, as in the instant case, the warrant is "regular on its face and the affidavit upon which it was based was not so lacking in indicia of probable cause that the officer executing the warrant could not with reasonable objectivity rely in good faith on the magistrate's probable cause determination and on the technical sufficiency of the warrant." State v. Harris, 629 So.2d 983, 984 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993); see also State v. Wildes, 468 So.2d 550, 551 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985).

2011City of Neptune Beach v. Smith, 740 So.2d 25, 27 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) (citing Schmidt v. Fortner, 629 So.2d 1036 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)). “[S]o long as the offeror has a basis in known or reasonably believed fact to conclude that the offer is justifiable, the good faith requirement has been satisfied.” Dep’t of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Weinstein, 747 So.2d 1019, 1021 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999).

2010The proposal for settlement was nominal, and the good faith requirement “insists that the offeror have some reasonable foundation on which to base an offer.” Schmidt v. Fortner, 629 So.2d 1036, 1039 (Fla. 4[th] DCA 1993).

2005See State v. Butler, 655 So.2d 1123, 1125 (Fla.1995) ("This Court is bound, on search and seizure issues, to follow the opinions of the United States Supreme Court regardless of whether the claim of an illegal arrest or search is predicated upon the provisions of the Florida or United States Constitutions.") (citations omitted); Bernie v. State, 524 So.2d 988, 992 (Fla.1988) ("[W]e hold ... the 1982 amendment to article I, section 12, of the Florida Constitution brings this state's search and seizure laws into conformity with all decisions of the United States Supreme Court rendered before and

1990This court’s opinion in State v. Bernie, 472 So.2d 1243 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), approved, 524 So.2d 988 (Fla.1988), undoubtedly contributed to the trial court’s belief.

2013See, e.g., State v. Cook, 972 So.2d 958, 959-60 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (explaining that good faith exception applied where “the sole debate ... is over the. existence of probable cause” and where there was no indication that affidavit contained misrepresentations or omitted information); State v. Harris, 629 So.2d 983, 984 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993) (holding that good faith exception applied even though probable cause was lacking in that informant’s reliability was not established and affiant did not corroborate informant’s statement that he observed cocaine in defendant’s house); also cf. Johnson v. St

2011Dyess v. State, 988 So.2d 146, 149 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (quoting Montgomery v. State, 584 So.2d 65, 68 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)).

2012“To apply the exclusionary rule in this case cannot possibly deter police because they did exactly what they were trained to do based on what we (judges) told them was appropriate.” Brovm, 24 So.3d at 681 ; accord Howard, 59 So.3d at 231 ; see also Krull, 480 U.S. 340 , 107 S.Ct. 1160 (holding that the good faith exception applied where police reasonably relied upon a statute authorizing warrantless administrative searches, but the statute was subsequently found to violate the Fourth Amendment); Michigan v. DeFillippo, 443 U.S. 31 , 99 S.Ct. 2627 , 61 L.Ed.2d 343 (1979) (holding that good fait

2011See Brown v. State, 24 So.3d 671, 680 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009); see also Howard v. State, 59 So.3d 229 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011); State v. Harris, 58 So.3d 408, 411 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (certifying question: "Does the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule apply to evidence seized by the police in contravention of [] Gant, [ ]?"), rev. granted, Harris v. State, 61 So.3d 410 (Fla.2011).

2014The Supreme Court ultimately concluded that the good-faith exception was “an established limit on the remedy of exclusion” and that “[i]ts application ... neither contravene[d] Griffith nor deniefd] retroactive effect to Gant.” Id.

2014The Supreme Court ultimately concluded that the good-faith exception was "an established limit on the remedy of exclusion" and that "[i]ts application . . . neither contravene[d] Griffith nor denie[d] retroactive effect to Gant." Id. - 15 - Similarly here, while Willis was entitled to challenge the validity of the search based upon Smallwood II and Riley, that fact does not answer the question of whether he is entitled to a remedy.

2015In Davis , the Court emphasized that the exclusionary rule is not a personal constitutional right, but is instead a “judicially created sanction” to “deter future Fourth Amendment violations.” Davis, 131 S.Ct. at 2433 -34 (quoting Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465 , 96 S.Ct. 3037 , 49 L.Ed.2d 1067 (1976)).

2015In Davis , the Court emphasized that the exclusionary rule is not a personal constitutional right, but is instead a “judicially created sanction” to “deter future Fourth Amendment violations.” Davis, 131 S.Ct. at 2433 -34 (quoting Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465 , 96 S.Ct. 3037 , 49 L.Ed.2d 1067 (1976)).

2012“To apply the exclusionary rule in this case cannot possibly deter police because they did exactly what they were trained to do based on what we (judges) told them was appropriate.” Brovm, 24 So.3d at 681 ; accord Howard, 59 So.3d at 231 ; see also Krull, 480 U.S. 340 , 107 S.Ct. 1160 (holding that the good faith exception applied where police reasonably relied upon a statute authorizing warrantless administrative searches, but the statute was subsequently found to violate the Fourth Amendment); Michigan v. DeFillippo, 443 U.S. 31 , 99 S.Ct. 2627 , 61 L.Ed.2d 343 (1979) (holding that good fait

2011See Brown v. State, 24 So.3d 671, 680 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009); see also Howard v. State, 59 So.3d 229 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011); State v. Harris, 58 So.3d 408, 411 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (certifying question: "Does the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule apply to evidence seized by the police in contravention of [] Gant, [ ]?"), rev. granted, Harris v. State, 61 So.3d 410 (Fla.2011).

2024The good faith exception is unavailable if (1) the issuing magistrate was misled by information included in the supporting affidavit "that the affiant knew was false or would have known was false" but for the affiant's "reckless disregard of the truth," or if material information was knowingly or recklessly omitted from the affidavit; (2) the "issuing magistrate wholly abandoned" his detached and neutral role; (3) the supporting affidavit is " 'so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render official belief in its existence entirely unreasonable' "; or (4) the warrant is "so facially defi

2014The good faith exception permits the use of evidence seized pursuant to a warrant unsupported by probable cause “when a police officer has acted in an objectively reasonable manner, in objective good faith, and as a reasonably well-trained officer would act in seeking the warrant from a detached and neutral magistrate and thus has reasonably relied upon the warrant in executing a search within the warrant’s terms and scope.” Pilieci, 991 So.2d at 896 .

2012The First District certified the following question to our supreme court in State v. Harris, 58 So.3d 408 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011): Does the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule apply to evidence seized by the police in contravention of Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 , 129 S.Ct. 1710 , 173 L.Ed.2d 485 (2009)? 58 So.3d at 411 .

2012The First District certified the following question to our supreme court in State v. Harris, 58 So.3d 408 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011): Does the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule apply to evidence seized by the police in contravention of Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 , 129 S.Ct. 1710 , 173 L.Ed.2d 485 (2009)? 58 So.3d at 411 .

2008In State v. Garcia, 547 So.2d 628, 630 (Fla.1989), we approved the Fourth District's opinion in Davis .

1994State v. Garcia, 547 So.2d 628 (Fla. 1989).

2008The notion that good faith cannot be claimed in connection with law enforcement error or negligence is confirmed in cases such as State v. White, 660 So.2d 664 (Fla.1995), and Shadler v. State, 761 So.2d 279 (Fla.2000).

2007The court concluded that the good faith exception was not applicable where "it was within the collective knowledge of the sheriff's office that the warrant was void." Id. at 668 .

2008Renckley, 538 So.2d at 1343 ; Garcia, 872 So.2d at 330 ; see also Howard v. State, 483 So.2d 844, 847 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) (holding that the good faith exception does not apply when “[t]he supporting affidavit contains absolutely no allegation in regard to any infraction of the law occurring inside the home.”).

2008As in Garcia and Renckley , because the supporting affidavit here fails to establish a nexus between the objects of the search and the residence to be searched, the good faith exception does not apply. 872 So.2d at 330 , 538 So.2d at 1340 .

2012“To apply the exclusionary rule in this case cannot possibly deter police because they did exactly what they were trained to do based on what we (judges) told them was appropriate.” Brovm, 24 So.3d at 681 ; accord Howard, 59 So.3d at 231 ; see also Krull, 480 U.S. 340 , 107 S.Ct. 1160 (holding that the good faith exception applied where police reasonably relied upon a statute authorizing warrantless administrative searches, but the statute was subsequently found to violate the Fourth Amendment); Michigan v. DeFillippo, 443 U.S. 31 , 99 S.Ct. 2627 , 61 L.Ed.2d 343 (1979) (holding that good fait

2012“To apply the exclusionary rule in this case cannot possibly deter police because they did exactly what they were trained to do based on what we (judges) told them was appropriate.” Brovm, 24 So.3d at 681 ; accord Howard, 59 So.3d at 231 ; see also Krull, 480 U.S. 340 , 107 S.Ct. 1160 (holding that the good faith exception applied where police reasonably relied upon a statute authorizing warrantless administrative searches, but the statute was subsequently found to violate the Fourth Amendment); Michigan v. DeFillippo, 443 U.S. 31 , 99 S.Ct. 2627 , 61 L.Ed.2d 343 (1979) (holding that good fait

2018In Tracey v. State, 152 So. 3d 504, 525-26 (Fla. 2014), the Florida Supreme Court held that real time CSLI data was protected by the Fourth Amendment, and thus, its use by law enforcement constituted a search which required a warrant based upon probable cause.

2018Id. at 526 .

2014Moreover, the good faith exception does not apply to a search warrant for a residence when “[t]he supporting affidavit contains absolutely no allegation in regard to *507 any infraction of the law occurring inside the home.” Howard, 483 So.2d at 847 .

2008Renckley, 538 So.2d at 1343 ; Garcia, 872 So.2d at 330 ; see also Howard v. State, 483 So.2d 844, 847 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) (holding that the good faith exception does not apply when “[t]he supporting affidavit contains absolutely no allegation in regard to any infraction of the law occurring inside the home.”).

2005For example, the courts will refuse to apply the good faith exception in instances where false or misleading information is included in the affidavit, see Leon; where information that would prevent a finding of probable cause is omitted, see State v. Van Pieterson, 550 So.2d 1162 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); or where "a warrant may be so facially deficient — i.e., in failing to particularize the place to be searched or the things to be seized — that the executing officers cannot reasonably presume it to be valid." Leon, 468 U.S. at 923 , 104 S.Ct. 3405 .

2000See United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 923 , 104 S.Ct. 3405 , 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984) ("Suppression therefore remains an appropriate remedy if the magistrate or judge in issuing a warrant was misled by information in an affidavit that the affiant knew was false or would have known was false except for his reckless disregard of the truth."); see also Van Pieterson, 550 So.2d at 1165 (holding "good faith" exception does not apply where police officer omitted relevant facts that would have defeated probable cause). [12] The federal cases were decided under Federal Rule of Evidence 701, which stat

1996See Santanello, Jr., supra (citing Kelley v. Pueblo Wholesale Co., 627 So.2d 534 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)) (manager's delay in reporting a shortage at her cash register until she completed a personal investigation to determine the source of the discrepancy was not a "willful or wanton" disregard of store's interest, but at worst, poor judgment); Nelson v. Burdines, Inc., 611 So.2d at 1329 (employee's emotional reaction of destroying a company document was an isolated incident of poor judgment or a good faith error in discretion, not intentional disregard of employer's interests); Woskoff v. *39 Dest

1995Kelley v. Pueblo Wholesale Co., 627 So.2d 534 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) (manager’s delay in reporting a shortage at her cash register until she completed a personal investigation to determine the source of the discrepancy was not a “willful or wanton” disregard of store’s interest, but at worst, poor judgment); Nelson v. Burdines, Inc., 611 So.2d 1329 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) (employee’s emotional reaction of destroying a company document was an isolated incident of poor judgment or a good faith error in discretion, not intentional disregard of employer’s interests); Woskoff v. Desta Enter., Inc., 187 So.2