W.D.Tex.: “Laundry list” argument of a lack of particularity rejected

The officer affiant corroborated the CI’s information and there was substantial evidence of probable cause. The affidavit was not bare bones. Even if the affidavit lacked probable cause, the good faith exception applies. Defendant’s “laundry list” argument of a lack of particularity is rejected. United States v. Lovings, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 208718 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 9, 2020):

Lovings argues that the warrant’s laundry list of items to be seized amounts to a “general warrant,” unsupported by probable cause to believe the items listed would be found in the residence or were related to a crime. This argument is meritless. The warrant lists the items to be seized with specificity: books, records, invoices, and currency; jewelry; telephone and address books; photographs of individuals; materials used to cultivate, package and distribute illegal contraband; computers; firearms and ammunition; other controlled substances; and electronic devices, such as cellular telephones, paging devices, and palm type organizers. Detective Valdez’s affidavit also attests to his 14 years of experience working in narcotics and drug trafficking investigations and 25 years of experience in law enforcement. The affidavit specifically states that Valdez knows “from training and experience” that narcotics traffickers keep records, weights, phone numbers, and books and store information on their cell phones, and computers, as well as videos and photos of money and other trophies. The affidavit adequately specifies the items to be seized, and the “warrant was sufficient in its particularity to permit an executing officer to presume it to be valid.” United States v. Massi, 761 F.3d 512, 531 (5th Cir. 2014).

This entry was posted in General warrant, Particularity. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.