Affidavit for search warrant did not support conclusion that evidence of money laundering would be found in some defendant’s homes

Fact that some defendants might have been involved in money laundering did not lead to the conclusion that evidence would be found in the homes of other defendants. United States v. Orozco, 575 F. Supp. 2d 1191 (D. Colo. 2008):

While such evidence might suggest that 11538 Nucla was purchased with drug trafficking proceeds that had been laundered through various bank accounts, or that Defendants Evaristo, Martha, and Cynthia Orosco had engaged in money laundering, I find it would not “lead a prudent person to believe there is a fair probability contraband or evidence of a crime would be found” at this address. Eidson, 515 F.3d at 1146; see also Gonzales, 399 F.3d at 1228 (requiring a nexus between the contraband to be seized or the suspected criminal activity and the place to be searched). With respect to potential evidence of drug trafficking, no evidence suggests that Defendants Evaristo, Martha, or Cynthia Orosco were involved in such activities, and no evidence suggests that 11538 Nucla was used for such purposes. No evidence links Defendant Samuel Orozco’s Mercedes Benz CL 600 to such trafficking, and the affidavit merely indicates that this vehicle had been purchased with drug trafficking proceeds.

Officer saw cocaine on the console when defendant got out of the vehicle, and that is a classic plain view. United States v. Gill, 290 Fed. Appx. 965 (8th Cir. 2008) (unpublished).*

While a search warrant is considered within the four corners of the affidavit, the protective sweep conducted here obviously is not. United States v. Lawson, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67124 (D. Kan. August 15, 2008).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.