Police investigating a homicide developed probable cause to search Sheppard's residence and Detective O'Malley prepared an affidavit listing the items sought. Because only an outdated controlled-substances warrant form was available on a Sunday, O'Malley alerted the judge that the form needed correction, and the judge said he would make the necessary changes and authorize the requested search. The judge signed the form but failed to correct the substantive portion authorizing a search for controlled substances and failed to incorporate the affidavit. Officers then searched only for the items listed in the affidavit and found incriminating evidence.
Issue
Whether evidence must be suppressed when police execute a search in objectively reasonable reliance on a warrant that is later found invalid because the issuing judge failed to correct a technically defective form. More specifically, the question was whether the officers reasonably believed that the search they conducted was authorized by a valid warrant.
Rule
The exclusionary rule does not require suppression when officers act in objectively reasonable reliance on a warrant issued by a detached and neutral judge, even if the warrant is later invalidated because of a technical or clerical error by the judge. The relevant inquiry is whether there was an objectively reasonable basis for the officers' belief that the warrant authorized the search they conducted.
🔒
See the holding & full analysis
Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.
The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
In Cleveland, Detective Nora Patel prepared an affidavit establishing probable cause to search Devin Cross's apartment for a stolen violin, repair receipts, and a distinctive velvet case. Because the courthouse was closed on a holiday, she used an outdated burglary-form warrant that still listed "firearms and ammunition" in the operative text. Patel pointed out the problem to a judge, who said he would correct the form and told her the warrant would authorize the requested search, but he accidentally signed it without changing the substantive description. Patel searched only for the violin-related items listed in the affidavit.
If Cross moves to suppress the seized violin and receipts because the warrant failed to particularly describe the items to be seized, how should the court rule?
Explanation. The majority held that suppression is not required where officers reasonably rely on a warrant later invalidated because the issuing judge failed to make necessary clerical or technical corrections. The key question is whether there was an objectively reasonable basis for believing the warrant authorized the search actually conducted. Here, Patel identified the defect, presented the affidavit to a neutral judge, received assurances that the form would be corrected, and searched only for the items requested. Because the critical mistake was the judge's, exclusion would not further the deterrent purpose of the exclusionary rule.