35. Should the motion be granted?

Normally, if a search warrant is invalid for any reason, (e.g., not supported by probable cause), any search done pursuant to it will be unconstitutional. The exclusionary rule will apply and any evidence seized will likely be excluded. However, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that if the police reasonably believe that the warrant they have been issued is valid, the exclusionary rule will not apply to bar the items seized from being introduced at the trial of the person whose rights were violated by the search. See United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984).

A search incident to a lawful arrest is a valid exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment. Authorities may conduct a warrantless search incident to a lawful arrest as long as the scope of the search is constrained to the defendant's wingspan and performed contemporaneously with the arrest.

A is correct. The motion to suppress the heroin should be denied because of the «good faith» exception to the warrant requirement. Evidence generally will not be suppressed when police officers reasonably held a good faith belief that their actions leading to the discovery of the evidence were authorized by a valid warrant. In this case, the computer check on the license number of the driver's car revealed that there was an outstanding warrant for the driver's arrest based on unpaid parking tickets. The police had no reason to believe that the warrant was invalid, so the search of the driver was proper incident to the arrest.

B is incorrect. This answer reaches the correct answer with the wrong reasoning. The motion should be denied, but not because a valid traffic stop authorizes a search of the driver. This is an incorrect statement of the law. A valid traffic stop may give rise to situations in which a search of the driver is permissible, including the development of probable cause or a custodial arrest, but the stop alone is not enough. Here, the police lawfully stopped the driver and then, based on the existence of what reasonably appeared to be a valid arrest warrant, conducted a proper search incident to arrest. Because the good-faith exception renders the arrest and accompanying search permissible, the motion should be denied.

C is incorrect. The traffic violation itself need not give rise to the arrest. Police may develop a constitutional basis for an arrest following a valid traffic stop. As explained above, evidence generally will not be suppressed when police officers reasonably held a good faith belief that their actions leading to the discovery of the evidence were authorized by a valid warrant. Here, the arrest was made based on a good faith belief that there was a valid warrant, so the fact that it had been quashed would not require suppression of the heroin.

D is incorrect. In order to conduct a valid search incident to arrest, the police need not have a pre-existing belief (based on reasonable suspicion or probable cause) that the person being searched possessed contraband. A search incident to a lawful arrest is proper for safety purposes, limited to that which is within the defendant's wingspan. It is true that the arrest warrant turned out to be invalid, but as explained above, evidence generally will not be suppressed where police reasonably believed that their actions were authorized by a valid warrant.