CA9: Cash seizure based on PC from false affidavit required exclusion

The government’s seizure of a medical marijuana supplier’s cash was based on a false affidavit by LAPD to create probable cause under state law. Without the affidavit, there was no probable cause, and judgment is entered for the supplier. United States v. $186,416.00 in United States Currency, 590 F.3d 942 (9th Cir. 2010):

This police misconduct is both highly objectionable and closely connected to the Feil declaration. The LAPD’s omission of crucial information from the warrant affidavit enabled its illegal search of UMCC’s offices and its seizure of the defendant currency. This, in turn, led directly to Feil’s declaration as, without a statement of ownership, UMCC would have been left without legal recourse to regain the currency that was illegally taken from its possession. Because this unbroken “causal chain” links the initial illegality and Feil’s subsequent statement, the Feil declaration is not “sufficiently an act of free will to purge the primary taint” from the LAPD’s unlawful actions. Brown, 422 U.S. at 602 (quoting Wong Sun, 371 U.S. at 486).

During a parole search where entry was by consent, and defendant was on parole for child pornography, officers were permitted to open the top of his computer connected to the internet. “The yet unanswered question of what Hamilton may have been trying to hide, coupled with the knowledge that Hamilton was on parole for possessing child pornography received over the internet and that he had told his parole officer that he owned a computer and accessed the internet, justified the officers’ actions in opening the lid to the laptop computer that was sitting on the table.” United States v. Hamilton, 591 F.3d 1017 (8th Cir. 2010).*

Defendant was handed his paperwork back, and he continued to talk to the officer. A question about drug trafficking in general did not necessarily implicate defendant’s conduct, and defendant consented to a search of his car. His general consent permitted a search of his backpack in the vehicle. United States v. Munoz, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 762 (8th Cir. January 13, 2010).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.