Daily Archives: February 19, 2018

D.S.D.: Inevitable discovery cures a Rodriguez violation

While extending the stop violated Rodriguez, inevitable discovery applies and the evidence is not suppressed. United States v. Conteh, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25542 (D. S.D. Feb. 16, 2018):

Posted in Inevitable discovery | Comments Off on D.S.D.: Inevitable discovery cures a Rodriguez violation

OH8: SW for “biological and/or forensic evidence” in a sex crime permitted seizure of a towel

The search warrant specifically stated that police would search for items that might have biological and/or forensic material and any other evidence tending to establish rape, but it didn’t specify a towel. The towel seized fell under the scope of … Continue reading

Posted in Particularity | Comments Off on OH8: SW for “biological and/or forensic evidence” in a sex crime permitted seizure of a towel

S.D.Ohio declines to wait for Microsoft to be decided and issues SW for gmail in another country

The government has applied for a Google search warrant stored overseas. Rather than wait for United States v. Microsoft to be decided, the court reviewed all the briefing in that case and decides that the search warrant will issue. In … Continue reading

Posted in F.R.Crim.P. 41, Reasonableness, Warrant execution | Comments Off on S.D.Ohio declines to wait for Microsoft to be decided and issues SW for gmail in another country

D.Utah: The REP is reduced on the curtilage of a duplex

Defendant was found to have abandoned property on the common area of the duplex. The privacy of the curtilage is reduced when there are others on the joint property of a duplex. United States v. Lucero, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS … Continue reading

Posted in Abandonment, Curtilage, Informant hearsay | Comments Off on D.Utah: The REP is reduced on the curtilage of a duplex

S.D.Ala.: Handwritten corrections on SW required a hearing as to how and why

The government contended in its brief on the motion to suppress that the search warrant was supported by controlled buys and didn’t otherwise support the CI. That requires a hearing. Corrections whiting out the address and changing it is enough … Continue reading

Posted in Standing, Warrant requirement | Comments Off on S.D.Ala.: Handwritten corrections on SW required a hearing as to how and why