MA: When seizing digital devices under SW, looking at camera pictures didn’t require exclusion where not mentioned in SW for camera

During a search of defendant’s house under a warrant that included seizing digital devices, the officer turned on a camera and scrolled through the pictures. When the warrant was sought for the camera, no mention was made, and inevitable discovery applies because they would have sought a warrant for the camera anyway. Commonwealth v. Fernandes, 2020 Mass. LEXIS 330 (July 6, 2020).

Plaintiff was tried and acquitted of murder by self-defense, largely on the bases of a surveillance video that caught the occurrence. He sued for not including it in the arrest warrant affidavit. Even if it had been included and the issuing magistrate reviewed it, the warrant would still have issued because the question was probable cause, not whether self-defense was positively shown. “The fact that ‘the suspect is later acquitted of the offense for which he is arrested is irrelevant’ to this inquiry. Michigan v. DeFillippo, 443 U.S. 31, 36 (1979).” Kapinski v. City of Albuquerque, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 20858 (10th Cir. July 6, 2020).

This entry was posted in Franks doctrine, Inevitable discovery, Probable cause. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.