Good faith exception to exclusionary rule applies only if neutral third party, not law enforcement, is responsible for error leading to illegal search

SEARCH & SEIZURE United States v. Clarkson, No. 08-4054, ___ F.3d ___ (10th Cir. Jan. 6, 2009)(Utah). Appeal of district court’s denial of defendant’s motion to suppress evidence found during traffic stop. HELD: (1) Police officer’s mistaken reliance on dog sniff for probable cause to search car is not entitled to good faith exception where searching officer was told by dog’s officer-handler that dog was trained for drug detection but was not told that dog had not been formally certified. Good faith exception to exclusionary rule for illegal searches applies only where neutral third party (e.g., judge, magistrate, court clerk), not law enforcement authority, is responsible for error leading to Fourth Amendment violation. Were the good faith exception to apply in this circumstance, the improper police conduct of conducting a search with an untrained or unreliable dog would not be effectively deterred. Such a rule would minimize motivation for police officers to ensure a dog is actually trained or reliable before deploying it. Allowing the good-faith exception to apply in this situation would therefore contravene the purpose of the exclusionary rule. (2) Drug dog’s successful completion of training course and current certification is satisfactory to establish dog’s reliability for purpose of concluding that officer’s reliance on dog for probable cause to search was justified. Nevertheless, while successful completion of training course and current certification is satisfactory method for establishing dog’s reliability, it is not only means. Dog’s reliability may also be established by other evidence. Read the opinion here.