CA3: Generic motion to suppress didn’t require a hearing

Defendant’s motion to suppress that mentioned constitutional violations without saying how his rights were violated could be resolved without a hearing. United States v. Tagliamonte, 340 Fed. Appx. 73 (3d Cir. 2009) (unpublished):

On appeal, Tagliamonte asserts, generally, that the “prior illegal entry … tainted the search warrant,” and that he is entitled to a hearing to “determin[e] the extent of the agents’ actions during the illegal search and the extent of any evidence found.” Appellant’s Br. at 20-21. Tagliamonte, however, does not explain how or why the initial unlawful entry “tainted” the subsequent search warrant. He does not argue, for example, that the warrant affidavit contained information gleaned from the warrantless search, or that information procured through lawful means, and included in the affidavit, was insufficient to sustain the issuance of the warrant. See Burton, 288 F.3d at 103. Nor does Tagliamonte contend that information gleaned from the initial search influenced the government’s decision to procure a search warrant. See United States v. Perez, 280 F.3d 318, 340 (3d Cir. 2002); United States v. Herrold, 962 F.2d 1131, 1144 (3d Cir. 1992). In short, Tagliamonte fails to articulate a causal link between the warrantless entry and the procurement of the search warrant–to explain how the search warrant, or the information included therein, impermissibly included “fruits” of the initial unlawful search. Accordingly, we conclude that any constitutional violation was harmless, and that the District Court’s decision to proceed without an evidentiary hearing was not improper.

Defendant lacked “standing” in his mother’s house where he claimed he slept occasionally, but there was no evidence of it. On the day in question, he showed up to borrow her van. United States v. Mason, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69957 (D. Neb. July 17, 2009).*

Whether the CI was reliable was pretty much moot based on the “trash picks.” It didn’t take an expert to know what the trash picks revealed. United States v. Sykes, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70259 (D. Wis. July 24, 2009):

Here, three times in five weeks the police found in Sykes’s trash between 13 and 44 “cornered” plastic baggies, 2 many powdered with white residue, which when tested (twice), showed the presence of cocaine. Detective Pittsley, a trained and experienced drug crime investigator, explained the significance of these 83 powdery sandwich bags to drug dealing, offering knowledge that has percolated into mainstream [*6] consciousness to the point that it hardly requires an expert’s opinion. This evidence easily established probable cause that someone was packaging cocaine for resale inside the house at 700 Raymond Road. Therefore, the search warrant was valid.