Forfeiture claimant did not lose his expectation of privacy in his briefcase by giving it to a courier

The claimant of the funds put the money in a briefcase and gave it to a courier who kept it with him, and this was not a waiver of his expectation of privacy in the briefcase. United States v. Funds in the Amount of One Hundred Thousand & One Hundred & Twenty Dollars, 494 F. Supp. 2d 960 (N.D. Ill. 2007).

Defendant in jail had a reasonable expectation of privacy concerning a search of his house, but he did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the search of another person on the premises. Officers asked an occupant during the search to produce drugs on her person, and she pulled a sock with crack in it from her groin. United States v. Walker, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48670 (E.D. Ky. July 3, 2007).*

Defendant did not state enough to get a Franks hearing. The application for the search warrant was a product of “cutting and pasting” from prior warrants, and the inclusion of marijuana on the things to be searched for was obviously a mistake and ignored by the issuing magistrate and ADA that looked at it. United States v. Gocha, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48667 (N.D. Iowa July 3, 2007):

If anything, this mixup is an indictment of the over-reliance by law enforcement on form attachments and on “cutting and pasting” in the preparation of search warrant applications. This is understandable in light of the time pressures inherent in obtaining search warrants, where often a large number of law enforcement officials are waiting, sometimes late into the night, for the issuance of a warrant so they can begin their work. Incidents like this one would not occur, however, if more care were taken in the preparation, review, and issuance of warrant papers.

Although there certainly was negligence in the preparation of the search warrant application, the court cannot find on this record that the error was deliberate or reckless. Franks does not apply to negligent misrepresentations. See United States v. Schmitz, 181 F.3d 981, 986 (8th Cir. 1999). Even though this case was, from the beginning, about methamphetamine and guns, and never about marijuana, it is obvious that no one, including the state court judge and the Assistant County Attorney who reviewed the search warrant application, noticed the mistake.

“Dillon, as the officers knew, was on probation or parole, forbidden to carry a weapon. Without his consent, on reasonable suspicion alone, the police could search him and the car he drove. United States v. Knights, 534 U.S. 112, 122, 122 S. Ct. 587, 151 L. Ed. 2d 497 (2001). On any of the above grounds, the police permissibly searched the entire car including the dashboard panel where the drugs were found. United States v. Gutierrez-Mederos, 965 F.2d 800, 804 (9th Cir. 1992).” United States v. Dillon, 223 Fed. Appx. 687 (9th Cir. 2007)* (unpublished).