D.Conn.: Removing the tainted info from affidavit here still leaves PC

Defendant contended officers invalidly entered his house to do a protective sweep, and that led to a search warrant. The only thing in the affidavit that wasn’t already known was the presence of a money counter. If that is struck from the affidavit, the remainder is valid. United States v. Jones, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37300 (D. Conn. March 21, 2014):

“When an application for a search warrant includes both tainted and untainted evidence, the warrant may be upheld if the untainted evidence, standing alone, establishes probable cause.” Laaman v. Williams, 973 F.2d 107, 115 (2d Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 954 (1993). Where improper material is included in a warrant application, the court should disregard that information and “determine whether the remaining portions of the affidavit would support probable cause to issue the warrant.” United States v. Canfield, 212 F.3d 713, 718 (2d Cir. 2000). “If the corrected affidavit supports probable cause, the inaccuracies were not material to the probable cause determination and suppression is inappropriate.” Id. “The ultimate inquiry is whether, after putting aside erroneous information and material omissions, ‘there remains a residue of independent and lawful information sufficient to support probable cause.'” Id. (quoting United States v. Ferguson, 758 F.2d 843, 849 (2d Cir. 1985)). “Probable cause is ‘a practical, commonsense decision whether, given all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit …, including the veracity and basis of knowledge of persons supplying hearsay information, there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.'” Canfield, 212 F.3d at 718 (quoting Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238 (1983)).

When the reference to the money counter — the only “tainted” piece of information in the warrant affidavit — is stricken from the affidavit, there is sufficient information to support a finding of probable cause that evidence of illegal narcotics activity would be found within the second floor apartment at 232 Westland Street. (Affidavit of TFO Campbell, dated December 18, 2012 (the “Affidavit”), ¶ 19, attached to Gov’t Ex. 13.)