D.Colo.: There is no requirement the SW particularly describe the inside of the place to be searched

The CI was corroborated by controlled buys and surveillance cameras showing drug deals outside defendant’s home. The house was sufficiently described that the wrong house wouldn’t be searched. “Ms. Pereda nonetheless argues the search warrant lacked particularity because it did not specify the layout of her home’s interior or mention specific locations within the home where illegal substances could be found. The Court finds this argument to be wholly without merit.” United States v. Pereda, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142683 (D. Colo. Aug. 22, 2018). [How can the interior be described? Unless the CI provided it, and that’s corroboration the CI was only inside.]

Defense counsel wasn’t ineffective for not filing a motion to suppress. There clearly was probable cause for the search warrant. Crisp v. United States, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142141 (C.D. Ill. Aug. 22, 2018).*

This entry was posted in Ineffective assistance, Particularity. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.