Category Archives: Warrant execution

CA9: A state SW executed by a federal officer doesn’t violate 4A

A state issued search warrant is not executed in violation of the Fourth Amendment because a federal law enforcement officer executed it. United States v. Cruz-Ramirez, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 21528 (9th Cir. July 19, 2019). Defendant wasn’t “in custody” … Continue reading

Posted in Warrant execution | Comments Off on CA9: A state SW executed by a federal officer doesn’t violate 4A

CA8: PC shown for Facebook SW; no suppression just because Facebook produced on the 15th day

Officers had seen photographs on defendant’s Facebook page holding guns, and he was a convicted felon. There was thus probable cause for a search warrant to Facebook to produce the account. The warrant was served on Facebook with a 14 … Continue reading

Posted in Social media warrants, Warrant execution | Comments Off on CA8: PC shown for Facebook SW; no suppression just because Facebook produced on the 15th day

MN: Search of rented room in single family dwelling was reasonable under SW; it wasn’t apparent it was rented

In a stipulated evidence suppression hearing, defendant did not preserve the issue he presents for appeal. Going to the merits anyway, defendant claimed that his rented room in what was, for all appearances, a single family dwelling was reasonable. The … Continue reading

Posted in Scope of search, Standing, Warrant execution | Comments Off on MN: Search of rented room in single family dwelling was reasonable under SW; it wasn’t apparent it was rented

Cal.5: An unlawful arrest is not per se with excessive force under the 4A

An unlawful arrest is not per se with excessive force under the Fourth Amendment or state statute. People v. Perry, 2019 Cal. App. LEXIS 555 (5th Dist. June 18, 2019). The trial court’s finding that the police didn’t search defendant’s … Continue reading

Posted in Excessive force, Warrant execution | Comments Off on Cal.5: An unlawful arrest is not per se with excessive force under the 4A

D.Ariz.: FTCA doesn’t provide a damages remedy for how SW executed

FTCA doesn’t provide a damages remedy for how a search warrant is executed. Lopez v. United States, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102516 (D. Ariz. June 19, 2019) The officer’s body camera video showed one of the passengers wasn’t wearing a … Continue reading

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Warrant execution | Comments Off on D.Ariz.: FTCA doesn’t provide a damages remedy for how SW executed

E.D.Mich.: Failure to leave a copy of the SW does not require suppression

Failure to leave a copy of the search warrant does not require suppression. There is no prejudice. United States v. Robinson, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99902 (E.D. Mich. June 14, 2019). The CI was creditable because of admissions against interest … Continue reading

Posted in Informant hearsay, Protective sweep, Warrant execution | Comments Off on E.D.Mich.: Failure to leave a copy of the SW does not require suppression

N.D.Ala.: Def counsel not ineffective for not raising flash bang device as justifying suppression of the search that followed

Defense counsel wasn’t ineffective for not filing a motion to suppress that use of a flash bang device was excessive force and justified suppression because it wouldn’t be under Herring. Also, defense counsel’s failure to challenge defendant’s arrest wasn’t ineffective … Continue reading

Posted in Excessive force, Warrant execution | Comments Off on N.D.Ala.: Def counsel not ineffective for not raising flash bang device as justifying suppression of the search that followed

N.D.Okla.: While an attachment was missing from the official SW it was at the scene of the search, so no prejudice

The government conceded that Attachment C to the mail search warrant was missing from it, and thus that it led to a potentially overbroad search. The search team, however, all had copies of Attachment C, and it was at the … Continue reading

Posted in Good faith exception, Warrant execution | Comments Off on N.D.Okla.: While an attachment was missing from the official SW it was at the scene of the search, so no prejudice

D.S.D.: Protective sweep can occur after an arrest at the threshold

A protective sweep can occur after an arrest at the threshold even though defendant’s girlfriend said nobody else was there. United States v. Villanueva, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89450 (D. S.D. May 29, 2019). The defendant being armed when the … Continue reading

Posted in Protective sweep, Warrant execution | Comments Off on D.S.D.: Protective sweep can occur after an arrest at the threshold

C.D.Ill.: Providing the inventory of the SW execution wasn’t designed to elicit an incriminating response

Providing defendant with the inventory of what was taken in the search, a normal practice usually required by law, was not designed to elicit an incriminating response. Therefore, the statement was voluntary and not subject to Miranda. United States v. … Continue reading

Posted in Reasonableness, Warrant execution | Comments Off on C.D.Ill.: Providing the inventory of the SW execution wasn’t designed to elicit an incriminating response

CA11: 33 day delay in getting SW for computer seized in CP investigation not 4A unreasonable

The government’s 33 day delay in getting a search warrant for defendant’s seized computer in a child porn case was found, although not ideal, not unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Thomas v. United States, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 14645 (11th … Continue reading

Posted in Warrant execution | Comments Off on CA11: 33 day delay in getting SW for computer seized in CP investigation not 4A unreasonable

W.D.Mo.: Primary object of SW found right inside front door, but that didn’t preclude larger search

The search warrant was for a package found right inside the front door. That did not preclude the officers from searching further in the house. Also, a protective sweep incident to execution of the search warrant was proper. Searching inside … Continue reading

Posted in Protective sweep, Warrant execution | Comments Off on W.D.Mo.: Primary object of SW found right inside front door, but that didn’t preclude larger search