State v. Nielsen
2013 UT App 178
Utah Ct. App.2013Background
- Police obtained a warrant based on an affidavit alleging Nielsen grew marijuana and observed short visits by two vehicles to his house; officer also attempted a trash run and swabbed the front doorknob for residue/ionscan results.
- Officers executed the warrant and seized marijuana, a handgun, and paraphernalia; Nielsen was charged with production of marijuana, possession with intent to distribute, unlawful possession of a handgun, and possession of drug paraphernalia.
- Nielsen moved to suppress, arguing the affidavit lacked probable cause because the confidential/anonymous source was unreliable and the affidavit contained misleading or unlawfully obtained statements (e.g., door knob swab and trash-run description).
- The district court denied suppression, finding the affidavit sufficient or, alternatively, that the evidence was admissible under the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule.
- On appeal, the Utah Court of Appeals agreed with the district court’s alternative ruling: even if the affidavit were defective, the evidence was admissible under United States v. Leon’s good-faith exception.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Nielsen's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the affidavit established probable cause for the warrant | Affidavit facts (CS tip, observations, trash run, doorknob swab) provided probable cause | Affidavit was insufficient; CS anonymous/unreliable and facts were misleading or unlawfully obtained | Court found affidavit problematic but did not need to resolve probable-cause defect because of good-faith exception |
| Whether affidavit contained intentionally or recklessly false/misleading statements that would preclude good-faith reliance | Statements accurately reflected observations; wording (e.g., "showed up") not misleading; trash-run described in context | Affiant misstated that vehicles appeared to enter house and misrepresented duration/outcome of trash-run to mislead magistrate | Court held challenged statements did not demonstrate intentional or reckless falsehoods and did not defeat good-faith reliance |
| Whether the door-knob swab and Ionscan without a warrant made the affidavit rely on unlawfully obtained information | Swab was permissible under then-uncertain law; in any event, warrant was not so lacking as to make belief unreasonable | Swab was an unconstitutional search (citing Charles) and thus could not support the warrant | Court acknowledged unsettled law (citing Jardines) but concluded warrant still met Leon’s reasonable-officer standard for good-faith exception |
| Whether the Leon good-faith exception applies to admit the seized evidence | Officers reasonably relied on a magistrate-issued warrant; exclusion would not deter misconduct here | Alleged misleading statements and unlawful swab undermine objectively reasonable reliance | Court applied Leon and affirmed admission under good-faith reliance despite affidavit issues |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (good-faith exception to exclusionary rule)
- State v. Horton, 848 P.2d 708 (Utah Ct. App.) (standard of review for officer good-faith reliance)
- Florida v. Jardines, 133 S. Ct. 1409 (2013) (use of drug-sniffing on home’s curtilage is a Fourth Amendment search)
- United States v. Charles, 290 F. Supp. 2d 610 (D. V.I.) (argument that door-swab without warrant was unconstitutional)