his head off it.” N.T. Suppression Hearing, 9/4/07, at 40. Neither officer seized the objects, see supra p. 5, and, thus, the suppression court, in addition to having no identification or description of the objects, was unable to view or make a reasonable conclusion of its own as to whether the objects were capable of impairing Holmes’ vision in any material way. Although Judge Conahan apparently found Officer Trotta’s bare statement that he saw objects hanging from the mirror which “were obstructing” Holmes’ view to be credible, such statement simply was insufficient to allow the suppression court to assess the reasonableness of the officer’s belief that Holmes’ view was obstructed, let alone materially obstructed, as the statute requires. See Terry, 392 U.S. at 12, 22, 88 S.Ct. 1868 (<HOLDING>). As previously noted, Officer Trotta failed to
holding that notwithstanding the officers testimony that he had no suspicion of criminality the officer was aware of facts that would give rise to reasonable suspicion in the mind of a reasonable officer holding that refusal to consent to search cannot support a finding of reasonable suspicion recognizing that police officers judgment is necessarily colored by their primary involvement in the often competitive enterprise of ferreting out crime  and holding that good faith on part of the arresting officer is not enough to support a finding of reasonable suspicion holding that the excluded evidence required a finding of reasonable suspicion holding that the fourth amendment exclusionary rule should not bar the use of evidence obtained by police officers acting in good faith and with reasonable reliance on a facially valid search warrant