[email protected]
or use our live chat
888-579-7796
Customer Service
or use our live chat
Customer Service
EXCELLENT Based on 387 reviews sean thompson2024-09-06Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google. Just took the SRO course. What an absolute outstanding training!!! I am not an SRO and have not been one. But as the Captain I need to learn and understand as much as I can. This course is excellent to have a better understanding of the law and the SRO... Keep up the great work B2G!!!! Doug Wallace2024-08-29Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google. Good information provided on S&S James Scira2024-08-27Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google. Great training. I would recommend Blue to Gold training to members of LE. Nichalas Liddle2024-08-21Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google. I have had the pleasure of getting to watch some webinars from Blue to Gold and have enjoyed all the insights and knowledge that the instructors have. Good training for all of us in LE careers. Keep on with the good work yโall do. brian kinsley2024-08-21Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google. Great training, refreshers, topic introductions. I love the free webinars! It really helps when budgets are tight. Thank you!! Tim Crouch2024-08-21Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google. Great, free webinars. Thank you. I love the attorney provided content for up to date and accurate information. Anthony Smith2024-08-21Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google. Awesome stuff!
Gifts & Gears
Mailing Address
Blue to Gold, LLC
12402 N Division St #119
Spokane, WA 99218
RESEARCH
The defendant was a suspect in a murder case. An officer drafted an affidavit for a search warrant for the defendantโs house. As it was Sunday, the local court was closed, and the officer had a difficult time finding a warrant application form. One officer found a warrant form for a controlled substance violation. He proceeded to make changes to the form to adapt it to his search but he failed to delete the reference to โcontrolled substance.โ
The officer took the affidavit form to the home of a judge. He told the judge that the form as presented dealt with controlled substances and showed the judge where he had crossed out subtitles. After unsuccessfully searching for a more suitable form, the judge said he would make the necessary changes. The judge then took the form, made some changes to it, and signed it. However, the judge did not change the section that authorized a search for โcontrolled substances.โ Officers searched the defendantโs house and found several items of evidence. At a pretrial suppression hearing, the trial judge concluded the warrant violated the Fourth Amendment because it did not particularize the items to be seized. However, the judge admitted the evidence because the police had acted in good faith reliance on the warrant. The defendant was convicted.
1. Whether the officers could reasonably believe that the search they conducted was authorized by a valid warrant?
2. Whether the law requires the exclusion of evidence seized under a defective warrant issued by an appropriate judicial officer?
1. Yes. The officers were justified in believing that the search they conducted was authorized by a valid warrant.
2. No. The law does not mandate the exclusion of evidence seized under a defective warran
Citing United States v. Leon, the Supreme Court held that the exclusionary rule should not be applied when the officer conducting the search acted in reasonable reliance on a warrant issued by a neutral and detached magistrate. The officers took every necessary step that the Court could reasonably expect of them. Officers are entitled to rely on warrants that they reasonably believe are lawfully issued. The exclusionary rule is designed to deter unreasonable actions by law enforcement officers.
468 U.S. 981, 104 S. Ct. 3424 (1984)
ยฉ Blue to Gold, LLC. All rights reserved