Yes, there were inconsistencies in the informant hearsay, but the defendant doesn’t help the court in what that means. “Thus, Defendant’s hearsay attacks fail to draw the court’s attention to any problem in the magistrate judges’ analysis.” There was double hearsay in the affidavit, but both parts were shown to be reliable and credible enough for a search warrant to issue based on apparent inferences. As to the search for drugs, however, probable cause was lacking and the good faith exception did not apply. The warrant thus was overbroad and that which doesn’t qualify as plain view is suppressed. United States v. Dyer, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 201798 (W.D. Pa. Nov. 21, 2019):
Defendant raises two lines of objections that the court can preliminarily dispose of. First, Defendant complains that the search warrant affidavits rely on lines of hearsay. Second, Defendant raises several attacks on Ms. Bowman’s inconsistencies and biases in her statements. Here, Defendant is correct that the affidavits in support of the search warrants relied upon multiple layers of hearsay, and Defendant marshals some decent attacks on the consistency of Ms. Bowman’s statements. Defendant, however, does not explain in his brief what the legal implications of these attacks are, leaving the court to do its best to connect the dots. Neither of these arguments mount an effective attack on either warrant.