United States v. Rosa
626 F.3d 56
| 2d Cir. | 2011Background
- Judge Kaplan respectfully dissents from the panel’s denial of rehearing, stating the case should be reheard and reversed.
- The dissent rests on Groh v. Ramirez and George, arguing the warrant was facially invalid and the good faith exception does not apply.
- The court in Groh held exclusion appropriate where a warrant fails to particularize items to be seized; George likewise refused good faith relief where warrant was facially invalid.
- Herring v. United States later endorsed a broad good faith standard for facially valid warrants but did not overrule Groh, George, or Rosa on facial invalidity.
- In this case, the warrant’s facial invalidity is obvious and the officer’s conduct is not attenuated from the illegality; thus exclusion is warranted to deter faulty warrant drafting.
- Officer Blake authored the application, witnessed magistrate approval, participated in execution, and later conducted forensic analysis, yet the dissent argues these factors do not justify applying the good faith exception.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether good faith applies to a facially invalid warrant | Groh/George control; exclusion warranted. | Herring permits good faith where warrant facially valid. | Good faith does not apply; exclusion warranted. |
| Whether Groh/George control over Herring in determining suppressibility | Groh/George stricter; facial invalidity requires exclusion. | Herring’s context allows good faith despite other factors. | Groh/George control; exclusion appropriate. |
| Whether the officer’s multiple roles affect the deterrence purpose of the exclusionary rule | Role overlap supports expectations of validity. | Other officers’ reliance could be consistent with reasonable conduct. | Deterrence and particularity require exclusion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rosa, 626 F.3d 56 (2d Cir. 2010) (investigator intimately familiar with scope; deterrence weighed)
- Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (Supreme Court 1984) (good faith defined; objective reasonableness in warrants)
- Groh v. Ramirez, 540 U.S. 552 (Supreme Court 2004) (facially invalid warrant invalidates suppression relief)
- George, 975 F.2d 72 (2d Cir. 1992) (facially invalid warrant cannot be relied upon in good faith)
- Herring v. United States, 129 S. Ct. 695 (Supreme Court 2009) (broad good faith language; does not overrule prior on warrants)
- Lazar, 604 F.3d 230 (6th Cir. 2010) (distinguishes warrant particularization issues from Herring context)
- Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court 1977) (particularity safeguard of searches)
- Maryland v. Garrison, 480 U.S. 79 (Supreme Court 1987) (particularity limits searches; officer awareness of limits)