Whether the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies when the affidavit supporting a search warrant fails to establish a nexus between the place to be searched and the evidence sought

No question identified. : Appeals erroneously affirmed the federal district court’s denial of the petitioner’s the trial court erred when it a motion to suppress arguing the affidavit supporting the warrant did not create probable cause, as there was not a nexus between the place to be searched and the evidence sought. Therefore, any and all evidence obtained pursuant to such warrant was illegally seized in violation of the appellant’s constitutional rights as protected under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Petitioner further contends that the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule does not apply and that the suppression of the evidence is an appropriate remedy.(R. 64, Motion to Suppress, PgID 224-234 and Affidavit in Support of Search Warrant, PgID 235-254). To remedy this, the petitioner would urge this Court to accept this petition for writ of certiorari and find that the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule does not apply and that the suppression of the evidence is an appropriate remedy. OPINIONS BELOW The petitioner, EUGENE NICHOLSON, timely raised this issue before the US District Court for the Norther District of Ohio On June 26, 2019, the petitioner, 2 EUGENE NICHOLSON, was charged by way of an Indictment with one count of CONSPIRACY TO POSSESS WITH INTENT TO DISTRIBUTE AND DISTRIBUTION OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE. (R. 1, Indictment, PgID 1-22) On November 27, 2019, the petitioner filed a motion to suppress the evidence seized arguing the affidavit supporting the warrant did not create probable cause, as there was not a nexus between the place to be searched and the evidence sought. Therefore, any and all evidence obtained pursuant to such warrant was illegally seized in violation of the petitioner’s constitutional rights as protected under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Petitioner further contends that the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule does not apply and that the suppression of the evidence was an appropriate remedy.(R. 64, Motion to Suppress, PgID 224-234 and Affidavit in Support of Search Warrant, PgID 235-254). Just prior to the Court’s written opinion the defense filed a reply brief raising the issue of the particularity of the warrant. (R. 75, Defendant’s Reply Brief, PgID 310-318) On February 5, 2020, the trial court entered an order denying the motion to suppress the evidence noting that if the defendant prevails on appeal, he may then withdraw his guilty plea and left open the issue of 3 the particularly of the warrant. Specifically, the Court denied the appellant's motion to suppress as to the issues of probable cause and the nexus between defendant's criminal activity and his apartment. The motion to suppress was otherwise held in abeyance as to the issue of particularity. (R. 76, Opinion and Order Denying Motion to Suppress, PgID 319-333). On May 12, 2020, the appellant appeared before the Court for a change of plea hearing and pursuant to Rull11©1)(A) the appellant entered a conditional guilty plea to the Indictment reserving the right to challenge whether the search warrant authorizing the search of the defendant’s apartment was supported by probable cause and provided a nexus between the place to be searched and the things to be seized. (R. 121, Plea Agreement, PgID 669-679; R. 238, Change of Plea Hearing, PgID 1762-1798) On September 22, 2020 the Court sentenced the appellant to the custody of the United States Bureau of Prisons to be imprisoned for a total term of: Defendant to be imprisoned for a term of 120 months as to Count | of the Indictment; to serve 8 years supervised release; and to pay 100.00 special assessment; no fine or restitution. (R. 235, Sentencing Hearing, PgID 1720-1737; R. 194, Judgment PgID 1356-1361). A timely Claim of Appeal was filed on June 4, 2019 (R. 200, Notice of Appeal, PgID 1386-1387). On appeal the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an Opinion on January 3,