S.D.N.Y.: Child porn warrant lacked PC, but GFE saved it

Under law at the time the SW was issued, the description “child pornography” without a reference to “lascivious”ness was fatal in the S.D.N.Y. as a lack of PC for the CP. However, the good faith exception applied and the search warrant would not be suppressed. United States v. Voustianiouk, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67642 (S.D. N.Y. August 3, 2009).*

A Rule 41(g) motion does not require that the search be illegal. Here, the property was alleged by the government to be stolen property, so his motion is denied until ownership is resolved. United States v. Johnson, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67233 (W.D. Ky. August 3, 2009):

Rule 41(g) states that “[a] person aggrieved by an unlawful search and seizure of property or by the deprivation of property may move for the property’s return.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(g) (emphasis added). The lawfulness of the searches and seizures alone is not determinative of Defendant’s right to recover the property. United States v. Smith, Nos. 07-2732, 08-1993, 08-1994, 329 Fed. Appx. 682, 2009 WL 1175515, at *1 (8th Cir. 2009). Therefore, Rule 41(g) applies even where items were lawfully seized.

Defendant’s stop was valid, and ICE agents arrived almost immediately to investigate his immigration status, so defendant was not unreasonably detained. He validly consented after that. United States v. Dameshghi, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66819 (D. Utah July 31, 2009).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.