State v. Running Shield, 871 N.W.2d 503

Confidential informant arranged controlled buys of methamphetamine from Travis Maho; one buy occurred at a Haines Avenue residence where the informant said they entered via an alley.
Officers conducted two controlled purchases and field-tested methamphetamine; later Maho was arrested in a traffic stop and items indicating drug distribution were found in his vehicle.
Investigators obtained a search warrant for Maho’s current and former residences and for “any people present at the time the search warrant is executed that have a social nexus with Travis Allan Maho and Brandi Star White” (an “all persons” provision).
When officers executed the warrant at the Haines residence, they stopped Antonio Running Shield in the alley, smelled marijuana, searched him and his vehicle, and found methamphetamine and marijuana.
Running Shield moved to suppress, arguing the affidavit lacked probable cause to support the “all persons” provision; the trial court denied suppression and he was convicted of possession of a controlled substance and possession of marijuana.
On appeal, the State argued the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies; the Supreme Court of South Dakota affirmed based on objectively reasonable officer reliance on the warrant.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence should be suppressed because the affidavit failed to establish probable cause for an “all persons” warrant provision	Warrant was supported by affidavit and, even if deficient, officers relied on it in objectively reasonable good faith	Affidavit lacked nexus tying persons present to criminal activity; thus the “all persons” provision was unsupported and evidence must be suppressed	Held: suppression inappropriate — officers’ reliance on the warrant (including the “all persons” provision) was objectively reasonable under the good-faith exception
Whether the affidavit was so deficient that belief in probable cause was unreasonable (Leon prong three)	Affidavit provided facts and reasonable inferences (controlled buys, informant statements, items found on Maho) supporting nexus	Affidavit lacked direct evidence linking transient or other persons at the residence to drug activity; temporal gaps weaken probable cause	Held: affidavit not so lacking in indicia of probable cause; reasonable inferences supported good-faith reliance

United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (establishes good-faith exception to exclusionary rule)
Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229 (discusses limits of exclusionary rule and deterrence rationale)
Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135 (exclusionary rule as a last resort; negligence vs. deliberate misconduct)
State v. Sorenson, 688 N.W.2d 193 (S.D. 2004) (South Dakota discussion of good-faith review)
State v. Jackson, 616 N.W.2d 412 (S.D. 2000) (standards for "all persons" warrants and drawing reasonable inferences)
State v. Wilkinson, 739 N.W.2d 254 (S.D. 2007) (drug activity characterized as ongoing/regenerating, supporting temporal inferences)