D.P.R.: Fourth Amendment applied to counterfeit goods search and seizure made at civil plaintiff’s request and executed by plaintiff’s agents and USM

Defendant lacked “standing” to suppress a court ordered search in a civil counterfeit goods case where the place where the goods were found were apartments he claimed were not his. He had no privacy interest in the places where the evidence was found. Quiksilver, Inc. v. Tito’s Perfumes, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46014 (D. P.R. May 29, 2009) (The court applies the Fourth Amendment without discussion because the court authorized the search and seizure considering “plaintiff’s agents and the U.S. Marshal” conducted the search.)

Under the Fifth Circuit rule that the good faith exception can be considered instead of probable cause (United States v. Payne, 341 F.3d 393, 399 (5th Cir. 2003); United States v. Pena-Rodriguez, 110 F.3d 1120, 1129-30 (5th Cir. 1997)), the court finds that the good faith exception applies to a search with a particularity issue where the warrant covered 436 and 438 but only 438 should have been searched. United States v. Rangel, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46130 (N.D. Tex. June 2, 2009). The court thus merged the particularity question into GFE:

Therefore, viewed together with the expressly incorporated affidavit, the search warrant was sufficiently particular to permit the executing officers reasonably to have presumed it to be valid. Accordingly, the government has established that the executing officers’ reliance on the warrant was objectively reasonable and in good faith, and that Rangel’s motion must be denied based on the good-faith exception.

When the government says it will not offer evidence in response to a motion to suppress, the motion is moot. United States v. Davidson, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46285 (E.D. Tenn. June 2, 2009) (government also argued no standing).*

Questioning in a jail is not analogous to Muehler‘s questioning about immigration status, so there was no Fourth Amendment detention from that. United States v. Owuor, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46011 (M.D. Ala. May 20, 2009).*

Defendant’s consent after a traffic stop was valid. The officer wrote a citation and told the defendant “You’re good to go,” and then asked if he could ask more questions, and the defendant said “Yes, you may.” United States v. $231,930.00 in United States Currency, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46262 (D. Neb. February 27, 2009).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.