Was the warrant supported by probable cause? Did the officer rely in good faith on the warrant?

Question

On September 15, 2000, Officer Doughty swore to an affidavit for a search warrant, the magistrate issued the warrant, and Officer Doughty executed it. The affidavit's "material facts constituting probable cause" for the search read as follows:
On March 17, 2000, . . . Tolentito and . . . Velasco were shot to death with 9 millimeter rounds. . . . An individual incarcerated in the Northampton County Jail has become a suspect in the offense in that he has made incriminating statements to at least three persons. An intimate friend of the suspect has informed the undersigned that the suspect informed the intimate friend that he had traded a pistol to an individual named as "Cowboy" for marijuana, "Cowboy" being known to her as residing at the place to be searched. The undersigned has personal knowledge that "Cowboy" is Delio Anzualda.
The affidavit described the "thing to be searched for" as a "9 millimeter pistol and/or ammunition," and the place to be searched as Anzualda's family home. While searching Anzualda's home, Doughty and his fellow officers found several items that they suspected were stolen. They also discovered cocaine and related paraphernalia, marijuana, and several firearms. However, a pistol was not among the items seized.
What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

NO; YES
No probable cause. First, the warrant, provides no time frame as to when the murder suspect made the incriminating statements to the confidential informants, nor does it indicate when the alleged marijuana-for-pistol trade occurred. The warrant also fails to indicate when the suspect was incarcerated, and it provides no facts from which the magistrate could have inferred that the alleged trade did, in fact, take place after the murders and before the suspect's incarceration. The only date contained in the warrant merely gives the date on which the murders occurred - March 17, 2000 - some six months before the warrant was issued. The six-month lapse, standing alone, does not necessarily eliminate a finding that the warrant was supported by probable cause, but this warrant's failure to identify any dates other than that of the murders is troubling. Without reference to the dates on which the described activities allegedly occurred, it is next-to-impossible to determine whether the information supporting this warrant is recent enough to establish a "fair probability" that the pistol might be found at Anzualda's home. "Because the officer failed to provide any sort of a temporal context for the events described, the magistrate did not have a ‘substantial basis' for concluding that there was probable cause to issue the warrant." Good faith reliance on the warrant. There are four recognized situations in which the good faith exception will not be applied, specifically:
(1) Where the magistrate was misled by information in the affidavit which the affiant knew was false or should have known was false, (2) the issuing magistrate totally abandoned his judicial role, (3) the warrant was based on an affidavit "so lacking in indicia of probable cause" as to render official belief in its existence unreasonable or (4) where the warrant was so facially deficient that an executing officer could not reasonably have assumed it was valid.
Anzualda argues that item (3) applies to this case. However, the fact that the magistrate lacked a "substantial basis" for determining that there was probable cause to issue the warrant does not necessarily mean that the affidavit was so entirely lacking indicia of probable cause that a police officer could not have harbored an objectively reasonable belief in the validity of the warrant. In other words, "no substantial basis" does not automatically equate to "no indicia of probable cause." In this case there is some indicia of probable cause that links the items sought to Azualda's house and the facts listed in the affidavit indicate that Anzualda had obtained a pistol from a murder suspect.