State v. White, 1 CA-CR 21-0207

Anonymous tip to DPS gang task force that Gilbert White sold meth from a Kingman residence and delivered on a bicycle; tip described as "not a reliable informant."
Detective Cortez surveilled the address, observed White at the residence and riding a bicycle for a short visit to a nearby house, and stopped a vehicle whose driver had ~5 grams of meth and said he came from a friend’s house on the same street.
Cortez’s affidavit included the anonymous tip, his surveillance observations, an assertion that White was married to a woman (Kathleen) at the residence, White’s prior drug arrests, and that White had no income; a magistrate issued a warrant.
Officers executed the warrant, found White in a trailer, and seized a digital scale, cash, and 19 grams of meth; White admitted selling small amounts.
White moved to suppress and requested a Franks hearing alleging material misrepresentations/omissions in the affidavit (e.g., not married to Kathleen; license address differed; traffic-stop driver not identified/charged). The trial court denied suppression and Franks request; White was convicted and appealed.
The appellate court held the affidavit failed to establish probable cause but remanded so the State could attempt to prove the good-faith exception to preservation of the evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Probable cause for search warrant	Affidavit and surveillance corroborated the tip; sufficient to support warrant	Affidavit relied on an unreliable anonymous tip and contained material errors/omissions undermining probable cause	Court: Affidavit was insufficient to establish probable cause regardless of alleged misstatements
Need for a Franks hearing	Alleged inaccuracies were immaterial; no substantial preliminary showing so no hearing required	Alleged false statements/omissions were material and warranted a Franks hearing	Court: Because it found probable cause lacking, it did not further address the Franks hearing requirement
Suppression vs. good-faith exception	Evidence admissible if officers acted in objectively reasonable good faith relying on warrant	Evidence must be suppressed because warrant was invalid	Court: Warrant invalid but remanded for the State to prove applicability of the good-faith exception; trial court must then reaffirm or vacate conviction

Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) (hearing required if affidavit contains deliberate/reckless falsehoods that are material to probable cause)
Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) (totality-of-the-circumstances test for probable cause from informants)
United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) (good-faith exception to exclusionary rule when officers reasonably rely on a warrant)
United States v. Clark, 31 F.3d 831 (9th Cir. 1994) (anonymous tip alone insufficient; needs corroboration)
United States v. Mendonsa, 989 F.2d 366 (9th Cir. 1993) (corroboration of innocent, static details insufficient to supply probable cause)
United States v. Vargas, 931 F.2d 112 (1st Cir. 1991) (patterned short visits to residence can corroborate drug-trafficking tip)
State v. Coats, 165 Ariz. 154 (App. 1990) (Arizona discussion of good-faith exception and suppression)
State v. Crowley, 202 Ariz. 80 (App. 2002) (warrants so facially deficient that officers cannot reasonably rely on them preclude good-faith defense)
State v. Weakland, 246 Ariz. 67 (2019) (explains when exclusionary rule is inapplicable because of objectively reasonable officer conduct)