D.Minn.: Second SW cured defects in first

First search warrant probably violated the Fourth Amendment, but another was sought that omitted everything about the first search warrant, including what was found. The second was valid, and the good faith exception applied. United States v. Eggerson, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 194267 (D. Minn. Sept. 27, 2018), adopted, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 194059 (D. Minn. Nov. 14, 2018):

After careful review [isn’t it always said to be so?*], the Court finds that the search of Mr. Eggerson’s iPhone did not violate the Fourth Amendment. First, although the March 16 search warrant was based on an imperfect articulation of the justification for the search of Mr. Eggerson’s cell phone, suppression of the fruit of that search is unnecessary in light of the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule. Second, even if the first warrant was so flawed as to require suppression of the evidence seized, the second warrant was not. If the purported fruit of the first examination of Mr. Eggerson’s cell phone is fully redacted from the April 4 search warrant application, that warrant was still based on an adequate showing of probable cause and provides an independent lawful basis for the search of the phone.

___________
* I once objected to an R&R at 8:30 pm. At 7:30 am, the order adopting the R&R was filed saying it was done after “careful review.”