Also known as: objective reasonable reliance · reasonable reliance
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A standard of conduct under which a party's reliance on another's representation or conduct is measured by what a reasonable person would have done in the same circumstances rather than by the party's subjective belief. The standard requires that the reliance be both foreseeable to the party whose conduct induced it and detrimental in a manner that the law will protect or excuse.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Owen Ortega owns the dominant estate and has long used a recorded access easement across Orson Ochoa's land. Ochoa erects a fence and plants trees that block the path while Ortega watches without objection for two years. Ortega then sells his parcel to a buyer who installs a driveway on the blocked route. A court finds the easement extinguished because the buyer's investment occurred in objectively reasonable reliance on Ochoa's inconsistent conduct.
Octavia Okonkwo orally agrees to sell Olive Okafor a parcel for a fixed price. Okafor pays the price, takes possession, and builds a barn and fencing on the land. When Okonkwo later refuses to convey title, Okafor seeks specific performance. The court enforces the contract because Okafor changed position through substantial improvements made in objectively reasonable reliance on the continuing assent to the oral agreement.
Orchard Farms permits Otto Osman to cross its fields daily to reach a public road. Osman, believing the permission permanent, spends heavily to grade and pave a permanent driveway across the fields. When the farm later revokes permission, Osman claims an irrevocable servitude. The court recognizes the servitude because Osman's investment was made in objectively reasonable reliance on the farm's conduct indicating the permission would continue.
Detectives obtain a search warrant from a magistrate based on an affidavit that later proves insufficient for probable cause. They execute the warrant and seize evidence from Onyx Pharmaceuticals' warehouse. When the warrant is quashed, the company moves to suppress. The court admits the evidence because the officers acted in objectively reasonable reliance on the facially valid warrant issued by a neutral magistrate.
An engineer employed by Outback Mining negligently certifies that a mine slope is stable. Osprey Aviation, a contractor, reads the report and begins drilling operations on the slope. The slope collapses, injuring workers and damaging equipment. Osprey sues the engineer for physical harm. Liability attaches because Osprey took action in objectively reasonable reliance on the false safety information.
Onyx O'Reilly requests a written opinion from the state environmental agency about whether a proposed landfill expansion requires additional permits. The agency issues an official letter stating no further permits are needed. Relying on the letter, O'Reilly begins construction. When the letter is later withdrawn as erroneous, prosecutors charge a permitting violation. The court recognizes a defense because O'Reilly acted in objectively reasonable reliance on the agency's official interpretation.
The standard focuses on whether a reasonably well-trained officer would have known the search was illegal despite the magistrate's authorization. It does not turn on the officer's actual subjective belief or intent. Suppression is denied only when the reliance meets this objective benchmark.
Supporting sources
The party must demonstrate that the promise or permission was one the speaker could reasonably expect to induce action, that the action was taken in reliance, and that injustice can be avoided only by enforcement or recognition of the servitude. The reliance must be both foreseeable and substantial.
…of judges and magistrates. We conclude that the marginal or nonexistent benefits produced by suppressing evidence obtained in objectively reasonable reliance on a subsequently invalidated search warrant cannot justify the substantial costs of exclusion. We hold that the exclusionary rule should be modified so as not to bar the use in the…
…is a matter on which judges tend to have ‘sound . . . instinct[s],’ . . . and familiar considerations of fair notice, reasonable reliance
…not overrule Apodaca . Whatever one may think about the correctness of the decision, it has elicited enormous and entirely reasonable reliance
…legally constitute an offense is a defense to a prosecution for that offense based upon such conduct when (b) he acts in reasonable reliance
…already decided that the exclusionary rule should not be applied when the officer conducting the search acted in objectively reasonable reliance
Supporting sources
Modern codes require an official statement contained in a statute, judicial decision, administrative order, or formal interpretation by the responsible officer or body. An oral assurance given informally does not qualify even if sincerely believed.
Supporting sources
Reliance remains reasonable unless the warrant is so lacking in indicia of probable cause that belief in its validity is entirely unreasonable, the warrant is facially deficient, the magistrate abandoned neutrality, or officers misled the magistrate with false information.
Supporting sources