Category Archives: Warrant execution

E.D.Mo.: No const’l requirement copy of SW be left at site of search

2255 petitioner’s claims include one that the search should have been suppressed for state officers not leaving a copy of the search warrant at the site of the search. That’s not a constitutional defect. It’s a Rule 41 requirement, but … Continue reading

Posted in Warrant execution | Comments Off on E.D.Mo.: No const’l requirement copy of SW be left at site of search

NE: Scrivener’s error in describing cell phone in SW could be cured by reference to affidavit

There was a scrivener’s error in describing the cell phone subject to the search warrant, and it could be corrected by looking to the affidavit. State v. Stelly, 304 Neb. 33 (Sept. 13, 2019). Defendant has no claim that the … Continue reading

Posted in Informant hearsay, Particularity, Warrant execution | Comments Off on NE: Scrivener’s error in describing cell phone in SW could be cured by reference to affidavit

WV Gazette: Officers found his $25K of heroin. He walked free, and now he’s suing police [for raiding the wrong house]

WV Gazette: Officers found his $25K of heroin. He walked free, and now he’s suing police by Jake Zuckerman. Police raided a house after falsely stating that one Figueroa lived there and made several drug deals. It was the wrong … Continue reading

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Franks doctrine, Warrant execution | Comments Off on WV Gazette: Officers found his $25K of heroin. He walked free, and now he’s suing police [for raiding the wrong house]

CA4: USMJ must review law firm’s seized privileged materials, not USAO’s “filter team”

Two days after oral argument on a law firm’s appeal that a USMJ reviewed privileged materials seized from the firm by search warrant and not the USAO’s “filter team,” the Fourth Circuit orders the Magistrate to do it pending issuance … Continue reading

Posted in Privileges, Warrant execution | Comments Off on CA4: USMJ must review law firm’s seized privileged materials, not USAO’s “filter team”

CA9: The extreme of QI: officers alleged to have committed theft during execution of a SW get QI because no case says it’s a 4A violation

Officers get qualified immunity for alleged theft of $300,000 in cash and property from plaintiffs because it wasn’t clearly established that theft from a search is unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Jessop v. City of Fresno, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS … Continue reading

Posted in Qualified immunity, Warrant execution | Comments Off on CA9: The extreme of QI: officers alleged to have committed theft during execution of a SW get QI because no case says it’s a 4A violation

N.D.Cal.: Compelled use of fingerprint to open cell phone not testimonial

The court at first declined to sign a search warrant for a cell phone that compelled use of a fingerprint to unlock it. After further submissions from the USAO and the FPD as invited amicus, the court concludes that a … Continue reading

Posted in Cell phones, Privileges, Warrant execution | Comments Off on N.D.Cal.: Compelled use of fingerprint to open cell phone not testimonial

C.D.Ill.: Six month delay in searching cell phone wasn’t unreasonable considering how busy the officer was, which the government proved

It took nearly six months to search defendant’s cell phone after he consented to it because of other important matters the officer was working on. “The Mitchell court acknowledged that officer workload considerations could justify a delay in seeking a … Continue reading

Posted in Cell phones, Warrant execution | Comments Off on C.D.Ill.: Six month delay in searching cell phone wasn’t unreasonable considering how busy the officer was, which the government proved

D.Mont.: Destruction of a lockbox to search it was not unreasonable

Damaging a lockbox to open it under a search warrant was not unreasonable and doesn’t require suppression of its contents. Destruction of property is sometimes required to execute a search warrant: Dalia v. United States. United States v. Boeke, 2019 … Continue reading

Posted in Anticipatory warrant, Warrant execution | Comments Off on D.Mont.: Destruction of a lockbox to search it was not unreasonable

UT: SW implicitly carries authority to use reasonble force to execute it; here, taking DNA

Police had a search warrant to obtain DNA. A search warrant implies that reasonable force might have to be used to execute it. A target can’t simply refuse to comply. State v. Evans, 2019 UT App 145, 2019 Utah App. … Continue reading

Posted in DNA, Warrant execution | Comments Off on UT: SW implicitly carries authority to use reasonble force to execute it; here, taking DNA

D.Kan.: In a wiretap case, resort to SWs would tip off the targets to the investigation, so they need not be relied upon first

Defendant challenges his wiretap because the investigators could have conducted more searches with warrants. Search warrants, however, are known to the targets: “However, the Court also credits the Government’s concern that isolated search warrants might have alerted the organization to … Continue reading

Posted in Reasonable suspicion, Warrant execution | Comments Off on D.Kan.: In a wiretap case, resort to SWs would tip off the targets to the investigation, so they need not be relied upon first

NY4: Exclusionary rule wouldn’t be applied to probation search during a time of uncertainty in the law where law now settled; no deterrence possible

The exclusionary rule would not be applied to what turned out to be an illegal probation search at a time when the law was unclear. There is no deterrent effect to be gained by applying the exclusionary rule when other … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Probation / Parole search, Warrant execution | Comments Off on NY4: Exclusionary rule wouldn’t be applied to probation search during a time of uncertainty in the law where law now settled; no deterrence possible

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