D.Kan.: Omission of items from return not prejudicial; using footnotes in SW affidavit isn’t “hiding” information

First, defendant’s Franks argument fails. The negative information that he complains about not being more prominently displayed was “hidden” in a footnote in the 42 page affidavit. There is nothing that says that there can’t be information in footnotes. Second, it’s not prejudicial that the inventory of items seized accidently left something out. Third, there clearly was probable cause for the warrant. Fourth, because of lack of remedy from Hudson, the court doesn’t even have to consider the “no knock” provision of the warrant. Fifth, defendant’s overseizure argument about surveillance equipment and his Mercedes being seized is sufficient to require a hearing. United States v. Harris, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164365 (D. Kan. November 25, 2014):

“Generally, law enforcement officers must announce their presence and provide residents an opportunity to open the door before executing a search warrant.” United States v. Brown, 2006 WL 1997641, *2 (10th Cir. July 18, 2006) (citing Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586, 589 (2006)). The remedy for a failure to knock and announce, however, does not include suppression of the evidence seized. Id. Therefore, the court does not need to evaluate the affidavit to determine if the officers had a legitimate basis to fear for their safety during the execution of the search warrant. Id. (“Given the Court’s ruling in Hudson, it is unnecessary for this court to determine whether, under the circumstances presented in this case, law enforcement’s fear of evidence destruction justified an exemption from the knock-and-announce rule.”).