Whether the Fifth Circuit has misapplied Leon by adopting an all-or-nothing approach to the bare-bones analysis

I. In United States v. Leon , this Court announced a good -faith exception to the exclusionary rule. 4 68 U.S. 897, 922 -23 (1984). “[T]he marginal or nonexistent benefits produced by suppressing evidence obtained in objectively reasonable reliance on a subsequently invalidated search warrant ,” this Court explained, “cannot justify the substantial costs of exclusion .” Id. at 922. Suppression would nevertheless be appropriate where a police officer secure d and execute d a warrant “based on an affidavit ‘so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render official belief in its existence entirely unreasonable.’” See id . at 923 (quoting Brown v. Illinois , 422 U.S. 590, 610 -11 (1975) (Powell, J., concurring)). The courts of appeals have split on whether an affidavit with some facts, rather than none, qualifies as “bare bones” under Leon . According to the Fifth Circuit, “’[b]are bones affidavits ” are those that “ contain wholly conclusory statements.’” United States v. Morton , 46 F.4th 331, 336 (5th Cir. 2022) (en banc) (quoting United States v. Satterwhite , 980 F.2d 317, 321 (5th Cir. 1992)). The Fifth Circuit relied on this all-or-nothing analysis below to reject the good -faith argument raised by Mr. Rayos. Since the affida vit included some facts, rather than an unadorned conclusion, Mr. Rayos lost. Other circuit courts of appeals have adopted a more nuanced approach to the bare bones analysis and ask whether the case-specific facts from the affidavit actually put meat on the bone , rather than useless fat . See United States v. Vigeant , 176 F.3d 565, 574 (1st Cir. 1999) (citing United States v. Weber , 923 F.3d 1338, 1346 (9th Cir. 1990)); Weber , 923 F.3d at 1346 (citing Leon , 468 U.S. at 926). The question presented is this: whether the Fifth Circuit has misapplied Leon by adopting an all -or-nothing approach to the bare-bones analysis.