D.Alaska: Incomplete tape recording of SW application doesn’t warrant suppression

The tape recording of the officer’s testimony supporting the issuance of the search warrant by a state court judge was incomplete. Nevertheless, there is no constitutional violation because what there is supports the warrant. Compliance with state law on this is ministerial [a moot point under the later Virginia v. Moore], and suppression is not warranted. United States v. Jackson, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49379 (D. Alaska May 10, 2005) [Normally I wouldn’t bother reading a case nearly ten years old, but my interest was piqued on why this one would show up on Lexis just now. Also note this case shows that between 2005 and 2014, Lexis now has nearly four times as many U.S. District Court opinions posted every year, and that’s why I had to stop reading civil cases from the District Courts: I have a day job, too.]

In a case with slightly convoluted and “murk[y]” facts, the court concludes that a probation search of defendant’s property that produced drugs also supported a later search of a cave on his property where he had a really large cache of automatic weapons. A CI tipped them off to the guns, and they came to the house for the probation search but found no guns. The CI called back and said the guns were in a cave away from the house. Officers went back to the cave. Defendant’s standing to contest the search of the case was hotly contested with defendant prevailing on standing but losing on the merits. United States v. Floyd, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 176419 (N.D. Cal. December 22, 2014).*

This entry was posted in Burden of proof, Probation / Parole search, Standing. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.