stating that because of the officers’ significant training, experience, and expertise, their assertions “drug dealers often store drugs, cash, records, and other evidence of drug law violations in their residences[,]” has significance in determining “whether there is substantial basis to conclude police will actually find evidence at a drug dealer’s home.”
How later courts described this case
- stating that because of the officers’ significant training, experience, and expertise, their assertions “drug dealers often store drugs, cash, records, and other evidence of drug law violations in their residences[,]” has significance in determining “whether there is substantial basis to conclude police will actually find evidence at a drug dealer’s home.”
- concluding that the good faith exception did not apply where “no reasonably well-trained police officer could have relied on the warrant that authorized the search of Agurs’ home.”
- stating that “police should have been aware that there must be a nexus between criminal activity and the place to be searched.”
- “Reviewing courts, like warrant-issuing magistrates in the first instance, are entitled to give credence to the expertise and experience of police officers in developing knowledge about the practices and proclivities of drug dealers.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Dissenting Opinion by
ADKINS, J.
I agree with Judge Barbera’s dissent to the extent that she opines than the police could have acted in good faith, but agree with Judge Murphy’s dissent, in his view that proof of “good faith” reliance requires more than proof that the officers could have relied in good faith upon the warrant. Therefore, like Judge Murphy, I would direct that this case be remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with his opinion.