Daily Archives: April 1, 2016

D.Neb.: Can’t prove judge issuing SW was a “rubberstamp” for the police when there was, in fact, probable cause

When arguing that the good faith exception does not apply, the “wholly abandoned his judicial role” exception needs an offer of proof. If, however, there is, in fact, probable cause, how do you prove that? You can’t. United States v. … Continue reading

Posted in Good faith exception | Comments Off on D.Neb.: Can’t prove judge issuing SW was a “rubberstamp” for the police when there was, in fact, probable cause

MO: Where items included in SW without PC, severance of the warrant is required, not blanket suppression

Officers checked off boxes on a search warrant form about what to search for (not a good way to present a warrant). Items 1-9 (property) that were found were supported by probable cause, and item 10 (corpse) wasn’t, but that … Continue reading

Posted in Scope of search | Comments Off on MO: Where items included in SW without PC, severance of the warrant is required, not blanket suppression

TN: Failure to leave the SW not a “clerical error” subject to cure or GFE

In 2011, Tennessee adopted the Exclusionary Rule Reform Act with a statutory good faith exception that included “clerical errors.” Failing to leave a copy of the warrant at the place searched or with the householder is not a “clerical error.” … Continue reading

Posted in Good faith exception, Warrant requirement | Comments Off on TN: Failure to leave the SW not a “clerical error” subject to cure or GFE

IL: Once officers leave the premises after executing a SW, they need another to come back

Police searched defendant’s house with a warrant, unhandcuffed defendant, and left. Then they returned to search again. A second warrant was required. Just because they could have obtained a second warrant doesn’t mean that was inevitable discovery. [And what’s the … Continue reading

Posted in Warrant requirement | Comments Off on IL: Once officers leave the premises after executing a SW, they need another to come back

PA: Warrant said “residence,” so it was not limited to garage, even though the PC was directed at it

The drug search warrant specified “the residence,” but the primary focus was the garage because that’s what the police knew. That did not mean, however, that only the garage could be searched. In the course of the drug investigation, police … Continue reading

Posted in Scope of search | Comments Off on PA: Warrant said “residence,” so it was not limited to garage, even though the PC was directed at it