W.D.Mo.: Fact other defense lawyers in other cases did not challenge this type of warrant execution is evidence of good faith

[While really thin,] there was sufficient cause to issue a search warrant for child porn in defendant’s house based on his text messages to a child and other facts observed in defendant’s house. The fact the police here had obtained other search warrants in similar situations and had not been challenged was strong evidence of good faith. How a computer search will occur is not a subject for the search warrant itself. United States v. Sage, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99110 (W.D. Mo. December 3, 2007). [So, if other defense lawyers did not challenge searches under these circumstances, and this defense lawyer was competent enough to raise what certainly appears to be a valid issue, the default by others in other cases means this defendant loses.]

Defendant in a 2255 proceeding argued that defense counsel did not properly argue his suppression motion, and the court finds no procedural bar from the argument first raised and decided on appeal from the conviction. On the merits, the record showed that defendant’s consent was voluntary, despite his limited language skills because his own testimony showed he knew he could refuse consent. United States v. Murillo, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16451 (E.D. Cal. February 23, 2010).*

As officers approached defendant on the street, he dropped a box which had marijuana in it in plain view. [Perhaps he would have been better off to have not dropped the box but held onto it and kept it shut. This was not treated as an abandonment.] United States v. Echevarria, 692 F. Supp. 2d 322 (S.D. N.Y. 2010).*

The search warrant here was lawfully issued and with probable cause. Nevertheless, some items seized were beyond the scope of the warrant, and they are ordered returned to the defendant. United States v. Petters, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125305 (D. Minn. April 28, 2009).*