Law School Wiki

Good Faith Exception

3 min read

Good Faith Exception

Definition / Rule

The good faith exception to the Exclusionary Rule provides that evidence obtained by law enforcement officers who act in objectively reasonable reliance on a subsequently invalidated legal authority need not be suppressed. The rationale is that the exclusionary rule’s deterrence purpose is not served by suppressing evidence when officers acted in good faith — there is no police misconduct to deter. The exception was first recognized in United States v. Leon (1984) for defective warrants and has since been extended to other contexts.

Categories of Good Faith Reliance

1. Facially Valid Warrant (Leon)

United States v. Leon (1984): Officers who rely on a warrant that appears facially valid but is later found to lack probable cause or to be otherwise defective may use the evidence obtained. The officer’s reliance must be objectively reasonable.

Leon does NOT apply when:

  • The affidavit supporting the warrant contained knowing or reckless falsehoods (Franks v. Delaware)
  • The magistrate wholly abandoned a neutral and detached judicial role
  • The warrant was facially deficient — so lacking in indicia of probable cause that no reasonable officer could rely on it
  • The warrant was so facially lacking in particularity that reasonable reliance was impossible

2. Binding Appellate Precedent Later Overruled

Davis v. United States (2011): Evidence obtained in compliance with then-binding appellate precedent is admissible even if that precedent is later overruled. Retroactive suppression would deter nothing — officers cannot be expected to predict future changes in the law.

3. Statute Later Ruled Unconstitutional

Illinois v. Krull (1987): Officers who rely in good faith on a statute authorizing the search or seizure are protected even if the statute is later ruled unconstitutional. Deterrence rationale: police are not responsible for legislative errors.

4. Clerical Errors in Police Records

Arizona v. Evans (1995): Officer’s reliance on a facially valid arrest warrant that existed only due to a court employee’s clerical error does not require suppression. Extended in Herring v. United States (2009) to police record-keeping errors, provided the error was not systemic or reckless.

Limits on the Exception

The good faith exception does not apply where:

  • False affidavit: The affiant officer knowingly or recklessly included false information in the warrant affidavit (Franks v. Delaware)
  • Abandoned neutrality: The magistrate acted as an arm of the prosecution rather than as a neutral arbiter
  • Bare bones affidavit: The affidavit provided so little probable cause basis that any reliance would be unreasonable
  • Systemic or reckless police error: Herring requires that the error not be attribuable to deliberate or reckless disregard of constitutional requirements

Key Cases

Policy

Deterrence rationale: The exclusionary rule deters future police misconduct. When officers act in good faith, they have not engaged in the deliberate or culpable conduct the rule targets; exclusion would deter nothing.

Social costs: Suppressing reliable evidence to achieve no deterrent benefit imposes substantial costs on the truth-finding function of the criminal trial.

Critique: The exception may incentivize sloppy warrant practices; officers and magistrates may become less careful knowing that good faith will save the evidence. The “systemic error” limitation in Herring is difficult to apply in practice.

Graph View

Backlinks