United States v. Leon

468 U.S. 897 (1984)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

An informant of unproven reliability told police that 'Armando' and 'Patsy' were selling large quantities of cocaine and methaqualone from their residence. The informant also indicated that he had witnessed a sale of methaqualone by 'Patsy' at the residence approximately five months earlier and had observed at that time a shoebox containing a large amount of cash that belonged to 'Patsy.' He further declared that 'Armando' and 'Patsy' generally kept only small quantities of drugs at their residence and stored the remainder at another location. Phone records led the officers to Leon (D), whose telephone number one of the suspects had listed as his employer's. D had been arrested in 1980 on drug charges, and a companion had informed the police at that time that D was heavily involved in the importation of drugs into this country. Before the current investigation police had learned that an informant had told a Glendale police officer that D stored a large quantity of methaqualone at his residence. Officers prepared a warrant to search 620 Price Drive, 716 South Sunset Canyon, 7902 Via Magdalena, and automobiles registered to each of the Ds for an extensive list of items believed to be related to respondents' drug-trafficking activities. The application was reviewed by several Deputy District Attorneys. A facially valid search warrant was issued in September 1981 by a State Superior Court Judge. The ensuing searches produced large quantities of drugs at the Via Magdalena and Sunset Canyon addresses and a small quantity at the Price Drive residence. Other evidence was discovered at each of the residences and in Stewart's and Del Castillo's automobiles. Ds were indicted by a grand jury. Ds filed motions to suppress the evidence seized pursuant to the warrant. The District Court granted the motion to suppress in part. The affidavit was insufficient to establish probable cause. Even so, the court did not suppress all of the evidence because none of the respondents had standing to challenge all of the searches. The court rejected the Government's suggestion that the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule should not apply where evidence is seized in reasonable, good-faith reliance on a search warrant. A divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed. The officers' independent investigation neither cured the staleness nor corroborated the details of the informant's declarations. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.