N.D.Ill.: Arrest warrant doesn’t permit a search on entry

Defendant’s arrest warrant permitted entry to arrest him but not to search. A protective sweep was still permitted, if justified. Here no. But the search warrant for the cell phone was not tainted by the initial illegality, and the exclusionary rule is not applied. United States v. Ferguson, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8958 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 19, 2021).*

Defendant failed to show that the stop was unreasonably prolonged. State v. Womack, 2021-Ohio-98, 2021 Ohio App. LEXIS 95 (3d Dist. Jan. 19, 2021).* [So much for the presumption that a warrantless search is unreasonable. Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 586 (1980); Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 762–63 (1969). Why doesn’t the state have the burden throughout?]

Even if what defendant challenges is removed from the affidavit for the search warrant, probable cause remains to search for DNA. In addition, the good faith exception applies. That additional DNA was present wasn’t disclosed because it hadn’t yet been identified. United States v. Lauro, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 247605 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 29, 2020).*

This entry was posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Burden of proof, Franks doctrine. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.