United States v. John Lalor
1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 13659, 1993 WL 219772, 996 F.2d 1578 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To establish probable cause for a residential search, an affidavit must provide a sufficient nexus linking the criminal activity to the residence. However, under the good faith exception, evidence obtained from a search based on a technically invalid warrant will not be suppressed if the officers' reliance on the magistrate's probable cause determination was objectively reasonable.
Facts:
- In late 1989, two confidential informants told Baltimore police that a man named 'Jamaican John' was selling cocaine. They identified his car as a blue Dodge Daytona with tag 'Thumpur' and stated he lived on Waverly Way.
- One informant claimed to have purchased cocaine from 'Jamaican John' on numerous occasions.
- Police officer Gary McLhinney independently corroborated the information by observing the specified car parked on Waverly Way in December 1989 and again in January 1990.
- On January 5, 1990, another officer stopped the car and identified the driver as John Lalor, who gave his address as 1572 Waverly Way.
- Police confirmed that Lalor's birthdate matched that of 'Jerry Jones,' a man listed as a resident at 1572 Waverly Way.
- On January 24, 1990, just five days before the warrant was issued, Lalor was arrested separately for possession of a handgun and possession with intent to distribute cocaine.
- On January 30, 1990, police officers executed a 'no-knock' search warrant at 1572 Waverly Way by breaking down the door, simultaneously shouting 'police, search warrant'.
- The search of the residence uncovered cocaine, a weapon, a significant amount of cash, and plastic sandwich bags.
Procedural Posture:
- A state magistrate issued a search warrant for 1572 Waverly Way based on an affidavit from Baltimore City police officer Gary McLhinney.
- Following his arrest, John Lalor was charged in the U.S. District Court with federal drug and firearms offenses.
- Lalor filed a motion to suppress the evidence obtained during the search, arguing the warrant was not supported by probable cause and was improperly executed.
- After a hearing, the district court denied the motion to suppress.
- Lalor entered a conditional guilty plea, which preserved his right to appeal the district court's denial of his suppression motion.
- Lalor (appellant) appealed the denial of his motion to suppress to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, with the United States (appellee) defending the district court's ruling.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule permit the admission of evidence obtained from a search warrant that is invalid for failing to establish a sufficient nexus between the alleged criminal activity and the residence searched?
Opinions:
Majority - Restani, Judge
Yes. The good faith exception permits the admission of the evidence because the officers' reliance on the magistrate's issuance of the warrant was objectively reasonable, even though the warrant itself was invalid. The affidavit failed to establish probable cause because it was devoid of any basis from which a magistrate could infer that evidence of drug activity would be found at 1572 Waverly Way. All information pointed to drug sales occurring elsewhere, and there was no evidence linking this activity to Lalor's residence. However, the warrant was not so lacking in probable cause as to make the officers' reliance upon it objectively unreasonable. The fact that two judicial officers (the magistrate and the district court judge) found probable cause existed indicates the question was debatable, supporting the reasonableness of the officers' belief. Therefore, under the good faith exception established in United States v. Leon, the evidence should not be suppressed.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the critical 'nexus' requirement for search warrants, clarifying that probable cause to suspect a person of a crime does not automatically create probable cause to search their home. However, the decision simultaneously demonstrates the significant power of the 'good faith' exception to save evidence obtained from a constitutionally defective warrant. By finding the officers' reliance objectively reasonable in part because other judges had approved the warrant, the ruling sets a high bar for defendants seeking to suppress evidence. It suggests that unless an affidavit is utterly devoid of factual support or contains knowing falsehoods, the good faith exception will likely apply, limiting the practical impact of the exclusionary rule.
