D.Conn.: Police research before the search showed this was a single family dwelling, and it essentially was; remedy for that wouldn’t help def anyway

Defendant argued that the search warrant was overbroad because the property was a multi-family unit. Actually and factually, his argument boils down to: I can lock my door, so I have a separate privacy interest. The officers looked at the house, and it has one main entrance and a side entrance off the driveway with one street number, and a picture is in the opinion from the government’s filing that the assessor’s office shows it as a single family dwelling. Objectively, this was still a single family dwelling. Defendant offered undated pictures from different angles into evidence six months after the fact that showed two mailboxes and two satellite dishes. The photograph in the opinion from the assessor’s file shows one mailbox, and the satellite dishes aren’t visible (likely because they are on the back roof). If the searching officers discover that they have a multifamily dwelling after entry, they have to limit the search. There was nothing indicating that to them here, and the search warrant was particular to this defendant. It’s not like he was the victim of somebody else’s search warrant. United States v. Reddick, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 209968 (D. Conn. Dec. 21, 2017).

This entry was posted in Scope of search. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.