D.Minn.: Search of house for drug trafficking revealed a surveillance system and DVR; it was reasonable to conclude evidence of trafficking would be on it too for a separate SW

When executing a search warrant for drugs and guns, founded on a strong showing of probable cause, and the police finding pounds of methamphetamine and multiple firearms, discovery of surveillance cameras and a DVR not connected to a satellite or cable system made it reasonable to conclude the DVR has evidence of the drug trafficking on it. United States v. Knutson, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 210308 (D. Minn. Nov. 13, 2017), adopted 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 208856 (D. Minn. Dec. 20, 2017).

In the same case, defendant argued that the search warrant was directed at him and not the place to be searched and the magistrate was misled because he wasn’t the tenant. [This started out sounding like a pirouette was coming because the argument was getting dangerously close to conceding no standing, which the court never discussed.] The fact defendant was not on the lease is not determinative of whether he’s a “tenant.” And the affidavit for the search warrant shows probable cause to search the place. It was based in significant part on a CI’s information, and the officers corroborated all that they could to show the informant’s tale true. The warrant also was not overbroad. United States v. Knutson, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 210309 (D. Minn. Nov. 13, 2017), adopted, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 208925 (D. Minn. Dec. 20, 2017) (See Treatise § 4.03 n. 21 on standing being a “two-edged sword”).

This entry was posted in Computer searches, Informant hearsay, Nexus. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.