D.Kan.: In a wiretap case, resort to SWs would tip off the targets to the investigation, so they need not be relied upon first

Defendant challenges his wiretap because the investigators could have conducted more searches with warrants. Search warrants, however, are known to the targets: “However, the Court also credits the Government’s concern that isolated search warrants might have alerted the organization to the investigation and left the Government with limited evidence as to the larger conspiracy. Accordingly, the Government adequately explained how this traditional method would hinder investigative objectives.” United States v. Castaneda-Ontiveros, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139504 (D. Kan. Aug. 19, 2019). Somewhat similar is
United States v. Hawkins, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 24719 (11th Cir. Aug. 20, 2019) (but not mentioning the notoriety of conducting a search).*

When defendant was stopped, a warrant from California came up, and the officer was trying to confirm he was the guy and whether California would extradite. Defendant was told he wasn’t under arrest. While waiting, 46 minutes into the stop, a drug dog arrived and alerted on the vehicle. The officer was acting to resolve the issues as fast as he could, and the stop wasn’t unreasonably extended. United States v. Guzman, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139901 (N.D. Ga. July 31, 2019).*

This entry was posted in Reasonable suspicion, Warrant execution. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.