D.Minn.: Typo in SW address cured by attached picture

A typographical error on the county road name (road 151 v. road 121) was cured by the picture attached to the SW affidavit and the officer’s testimony that they discovered the error and searched the correct property. United States v. Young, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104614 (D. Minn. October 15, 2009).

Defendant who was called out by name for questioning by the police was seized under the totality of circumstances. United States v. Crandell, 668 F. Supp. 2d 635 (D. N.J. 2009), on remand from United States v. Crandell, 554 F.3d 79 (3d Cir. 2009):

The facts in Drayton differ significantly from the facts in this case. One critical difference lies in the fact that in Drayton, the police officers were dressed in plain clothes and intended to conduct a random drug interdiction search. The officers informed the defendants in Drayton of their objective.

In contrast, here, the officers received an anonymous tip about a black male, with dreadlocks and blonde tips, carrying a gun, which led them to search, specifically, for Defendant Crandell. Defendant was approached by three uniformed officers. Officer Valez told Crandell that he had “received information that [Crandell] might have a weapon on [him]” and that “[he] wanted to give [Defendant] a pat down for [the officers’] protection.” (Tr. 44:3-8.) He then stated that Crandell “was free to leave at any time.” (Id.)

There is a notable difference between an encounter where a defendant is among a group of people to whom the police are addressing questions, in furtherance of a random drug interdiction effort; and here, where Crandell was sought out by name by a group of officers, who told him they suspected him of possessing a weapon and wished to pat him down.

A security sweep of a building is not per se invalid because there was an arrest outside. United States v. Guerrero, 669 F. Supp. 2d 417 (S.D. N.Y. 2009).*

Defense counsel was not ineffective for not moving to suppress a search of defendant’s stuff in prison since it would never win. United States v. Owens, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104422 (W.D. La. October 19, 2009).*

Informant was corroborated by a controlled buy. There was reasonable suspicion at the time of the stop. United States v. Perez, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104364 (D. R.I. October 19, 2009).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.