E.D.Pa.: Def’s argument that cast PC for SW more as BRD “misapprehends the import and purpose of search warrants in two fundamental ways”

Defendant’s argument on lack of probable cause misses the mark because it’s cast in terms more like beyond a reasonable doubt of criminal activity and not merely probable cause. There was probable cause. United States v. Milliner, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73024 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 29, 2019):

In advancing these arguments, Defendant misapprehends the import and purpose of search warrants in two fundamental ways. First, contrary to Defendant’s assertions, a valid search warrant need only be based on a finding of probable cause that a crime has been committed; a search warrant need not be based on evidence of a crime committed beyond a reasonable doubt. Second, a search warrant need not identify a specific individual target to be valid.

It is axiomatic that a finding of probable cause “does not require absolute certainty that evidence of criminal activity will be found at a particular place, but rather . . . it is reasonable to assume that a search will uncover such evidence.” Yusuf, 461 F.3d at 390 (citing Ritter, 416 F.3d 256, 263 (3d Cir. 2005)). Thus, Defendant’s arguments relating to law enforcement’s purported failure to “confirm[] the identity of Instagram user X090210 as Mr. Milliner” and failure to “confirm[] that Instagram user X090210 was in fact an adult” are rejected. Def.’s Suppression Mot. 4-5, ECF No. 32. Law enforcement was not required, for purposes of obtaining a search warrant on probable cause, to prove that Defendant was Instagram user x090210 or that Instagram user was an adult beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Supreme Court has explained that “search warrants are not directed at persons; they authorize the search of ‘place[s]’ and the seizure of ‘things,’ and as a constitutional matter they need not even name the person from whom the things will be seized.” Zurcher v. Stanford Daily, 436 U.S. 547, 555 (1978). Thus, contrary to Defendant’s assertion, Philadelphia Police need not have established that it was Defendant who participated in the alleged inappropriate and illegal conduct with Minor #1 in Michigan for the magistrate to have found probable cause to search his residence. Instead, Philadelphia Police need only have established, as they did in this case, that there was a “fair probability that evidence of a crime [would] be found in” Defendant’s residence. United States v. Merz, 396 F. App’x 838, 842 (3d Cir. 2010) (citing Gates, 462 U.S. at 238). Defendant’s complaint that law enforcement did not “confirm the actual identity of Instagram user X090210” before seeking a search warrant for Defendant’s residence, is, therefore, without a basis because there is no requirement that law enforcement target any specific person when seeking authority to search a place and seize evidence. Def.’s Suppression Mot. 4, ECF No. 32.