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.

This entry was posted in Exclusionary rule, Franks doctrine, Particularity, Scope of search. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.