S.D.N.Y.: Affidavit for SW was disclosed in part on government’s claim it shouldn’t be

S.D. N.Y. holds that the affidavit for a search warrant was subject to the common law disclosure of judicial records, but part of it would be redacted on a balancing of competing interests. United States v. All Funds on Deposit at Wells Fargo Bank in San Francisco, 643 F. Supp. 2d 577 (S.D. N.Y. 2009):

Although the Government’s publicly filed memorandum of law asserts these considerations only conclusorily, it has also submitted, ex parte and under seal, a declaration by the Special Agent who signed the subject affidavits which explains the Government’s position in some detail and attaches a number of exhibits, including the affidavits themselves. See Conte Decl. For the reasons set forth in a separate Sealed Ex Parte Memorandum Opinion, the Court finds that the sensitivity of the Government’s ongoing investigation and the potential that premature disclosure may thwart further seizures are compelling reasons constituting countervailing factors sufficient to require the redaction of certain portions of the subject affidavits and the Conte Declaration, although certain portions of those documents will be unsealed at this time. See Aref, 533 F.3d at 82 (“[W]hile the findings [supporting denial of access] must be made on the record for our review, ‘such findings may be entered under seal, if appropriate.'” (quoting In re N.Y. Times Co., 828 F.2d at 116)). Therefore, although the complete versions of the documents will remain under seal pending further order of the Court, redacted versions of the warrant affidavits and the Conte Declaration will be placed in the Court’s public file. The following portions of the documents will be redacted from the public versions: June 2, 2009, Aff. PP 5 (last sentence only) and 7-13; June 24, 2009, Aff. PP 6 (last sentence only), and 8-14; Conte Decl. PP 9-13, and 15, Exs. 5-7.

Defendant’s appearance that he was on drugs and was excessively fidgety was reasonable suspicion for calling in a drug dog. United States v. Prokupek, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72297 (D. Neb. June 30, 2009):

When asked for his driver’s license, registration and insurance, Prokupek said he did not have his license with him. Prokupek had no identification on his person, and Estwick had to collect Prokupek’s biographical information and relay it to the dispatcher. The State Patrol dispatcher was able to verify that Prokupek had a driver’s license. Meanwhile, Trooper Estwick observed Prokupek to be fidgety and agitated. Prokupek kept gritting his teeth and could not keep his hands or feet still. Estwick also described Prokupek’s pupils as “kind of weird acting and real glossy,” and testified that Prokupek exhibited the telltale signs of someone who has been using drugs.

[posted 8/20]

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.