W.D.Wash.: A filter team is required for execution of an allegedly overbroad SW

A filter team isn’t required just because a Facebook account search warrant is alleged to be overbroad. United States v. Sam, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79023 (W.D. Wash. May 5, 2020).

Hearsay in a search warrant isn’t less believable solely because it’s hearsay. “The Rules of Evidence do not govern search warrant applications. Fed. R. Evid. 1101(d)(3). Moreover, because only federal law enforcement agents and government attorneys are permitted to apply for federal search warrants, many warrant affidavits contain hearsay. Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(b). That the warrant affidavit in this case contains hearsay is no mark against its credibility.” United States v. Sierra, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78914 (D. S.D. May 5, 2020).

“Because Mr. Hunt does not provide any factual or legal support for his motion [to suppress], the Court ‘need not devote much time to his argument.’” The government argued abandonment and three other exceptions to the warrant requirement, including the automobile exception. Denied. United States v. Hunt, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78860 (W.D. Okla. May 5, 2020).

This entry was posted in Admissibility of evidence, Burden of pleading, Overbreadth, Warrant execution. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.