E.D.Pa.: When dwelling was found to be multi-unit, the search was limited to the proper one; ER should not be applied because the officer acted in complete good faith
Defendant failed to make a substantial preliminary showing for Franks purposes that the officer recklessly disregarded the fact there could be two residential units in the building he was seeking the search warrant for. He reviewed property records and Google maps and still didn’t see that it was a multi-unit dwelling. The exclusionary rule should not apply to his efforts. The warrant also did not violate particularity because warrant sought to search the entire dwelling. Once the officer realized there were two dwelling units, the search was limited to the proper one. Exclusion is inappropriate here, and the good faith exception also applies. United States v. Bernard, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 203826 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 2, 2020):
Detective Palma did not omit any reference to a specific apartment recklessly, nor did he act with reckless disregard for the truth or have obvious reasons to doubt the truth of his affidavit. Wilson, 212 F.3d at 783. He conducted a thorough preliminary investigation in accordance with his standard procedures. (Hr g Tr. 57:19-25, 58:1-2.) In doing so, he viewed Bernard’s residence on Google Maps, reviewed several property records, and considered information about the size and structure of the home. (Id. at 13:22-25, 14:1-7, 14:13-17, 16:11-25, 17:1-7.) Bernard argues Palma could have done more to determine if 5142 Harlan Street was a single- or multi-unit dwelling before submitting his affidavit of probable cause for the entire residence. But whether Palma could have done more is not the dispositive issue. His investigation was reasonably thorough and led him to reasonably (though incorrectly) conclude 5142 Harlan Street was a single-unit dwelling. In short, nothing in the record suggests Detective Palma acted with reckless disregard for the truth in swearing out the affidavit of probable cause.
. . .
Because the warrant was overbroad, once Detective Palma realized 5142 Harlan Street was a multi-unit dwelling he had to either cease his search entirely or limit it to those areas clearly covered by the warrant. Ritter, 416 F.3d at 266 (citing Garrison, 480 U.S. at 87). Whether he realized it at the time or not, he properly limited his search to areas of the home clearly covered by the warrant. He testified credibly that, upon entering the residence, he proceeded upstairs and encountered Bernard in one of the second-floor rooms. He searched the second floor and recovered a set of keys, which included a key for a safe. The second-floor search was permissible because Bernard s second-floor apartment was an area[] clearly covered by the warrant. Id. Detective Palma went downstairs to the first-floor common area where he found a loaded semiautomatic rifle and a safe. He used the key from the second floor to unlock the safe and discovered two more loaded semiautomatic firearms and several cards belonging to Bernard.
by John Wesley Hall
Criminal Defense Lawyer and
Search and seizure law consultant
Little Rock, Arkansas
Contact: forhall @ aol.com / The Book www.johnwesleyhall.com
"If it was easy, everybody would be doing it. It isn't, and they don't." —Me
"Life is not a matter of holding good cards, but of playing a poor hand well." –Josh Billings (pseudonym of Henry Wheeler Shaw), Josh Billings on Ice, and Other Things (1868) (erroneously attributed to Robert Louis Stevenson, among others)
“I am still learning.” —Domenico Giuntalodi (but misattributed to Michelangelo Buonarroti (common phrase throughout 1500's)).
"Love work; hate mastery over others; and avoid intimacy with the government."
—Shemaya, in the Thalmud
"It is a pleasant world we live in, sir, a very pleasant world. There are bad people in it, Mr. Richard, but if there were no bad people, there would be no good lawyers."
—Charles Dickens, “The Old Curiosity Shop ... With a Frontispiece. From a Painting by Geo. Cattermole, Etc.” 255 (1848)
"A system of law that not only makes certain conduct criminal, but also lays down rules for the conduct of the authorities, often becomes complex in its application to individual cases, and will from time to time produce imperfect results, especially if one's attention is confined to the particular case at bar. Some criminals do go free because of the necessity of keeping government and its servants in their place. That is one of the costs of having and enforcing a Bill of Rights. This country is built on the assumption that the cost is worth paying, and that in the long run we are all both freer and safer if the Constitution is strictly enforced."
—Williams
v. Nix, 700 F. 2d 1164, 1173 (8th Cir. 1983) (Richard Sheppard Arnold,
J.), rev'd Nix v. Williams, 467 US. 431 (1984).
"The criminal goes free, if he must, but it is the law that sets him free. Nothing can destroy a government more quickly than its failure to observe its own laws,
or worse, its disregard of the charter of its own existence." —Mapp
v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 659 (1961).
"Any costs the exclusionary rule are costs imposed directly by the Fourth Amendment."
—Yale Kamisar, 86 Mich.L.Rev. 1, 36 n. 151 (1987).
"There have been powerful hydraulic pressures throughout our history that
bear heavily on the Court to water down constitutional guarantees and give the
police the upper hand. That hydraulic pressure has probably never been greater
than it is today."
— Terry
v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 39 (1968) (Douglas, J., dissenting).
"The great end, for which men entered into society, was to secure their
property."
—Entick
v. Carrington, 19 How.St.Tr. 1029, 1066, 95 Eng. Rep. 807 (C.P. 1765)
"It is a fair summary of history to say that the safeguards of liberty have
frequently been forged in controversies involving not very nice people. And
so, while we are concerned here with a shabby defrauder, we must deal with his
case in the context of what are really the great themes expressed by the Fourth
Amendment."
—United
States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56, 69 (1950) (Frankfurter, J., dissenting)
"The course of true law pertaining to searches and seizures, as enunciated
here, has not–to put it mildly–run smooth."
—Chapman
v. United States, 365 U.S. 610, 618 (1961) (Frankfurter, J., concurring).
"A search is a search, even if it happens to disclose nothing but the
bottom of a turntable."
—Arizona
v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321, 325 (1987)
"For the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places. What a person knowingly
exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth
Amendment protection. ... But what he seeks to preserve as private, even in
an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected."
—Katz
v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 351 (1967)
“Experience should teach us to be most on guard to
protect liberty when the Government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born
to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded
rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men
of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.”
—United
States v. Olmstead, 277 U.S. 438, 479 (1925) (Brandeis, J., dissenting)
“Liberty—the freedom from unwarranted
intrusion by government—is as easily lost through insistent nibbles by
government officials who seek to do their jobs too well as by those whose purpose
it is to oppress; the piranha can be as deadly as the shark.”
—United
States v. $124,570, 873 F.2d 1240, 1246 (9th Cir. 1989)
"You can't always get what you want /
But if you try sometimes / You just might find / You get what you need."
—Mick Jagger & Keith Richards
"In Germany, they first came for the communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for
the Catholics and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Catholic. Then they came
for me–and by that time there was nobody left to speak up."
—Martin Niemöller (1945) [he served seven years in a concentration
camp]
“You know, most men would get discouraged by
now. Fortunately for you, I am not most men!”
---Pepé Le Pew
"The point of the Fourth Amendment, which often is not grasped by zealous officers,
is not that it denies law enforcement the support of the usual inferences which
reasonable men draw from evidence. Its protection consists in requiring that
those inferences be drawn by a neutral and detached magistrate instead of being
judged by the officer engaged in the often competitive enterprise of ferreting
out crime."
—Johnson
v. United States, 333 U.S. 10, 13-14 (1948)