D.N.M.: While affiant wasn’t sworn, other witnesses were in testifying on application

Defendant consented to a search after being told of the right to refuse. Officers also sought a search warrant for a safe from a tribal judge, and the affiant wasn’t sworn to. Additional testimony was, however. The consent saves the search of the safe, and there was good faith based on the additional testimony added on to the written warrant application. United States v. Viarrial, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 175718 (D.N.M. Oct. 27, 2015).

Assuming, without deciding, that the search warrant for the cell phone in this case lacked probable cause, it wasn’t so lacking that reliance on it was objectively unreasonable. United States v. Adams, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12387 (D.Minn. Jan. 5, 2016), adopted United States v. Doss, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12385 (D. Minn. Feb. 1, 2016)* [Once again, a court decides good faith without giving a clue to law enforcement, prosecutors, the defense bar, or issuing magistrates whether probable cause exists, and this is a default of judicial function to the police. The court might as well as said: close enough for government work.]

This entry was posted in Consent, Good faith exception, Warrant requirement. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.