IA: Oral permission to amend SW to correct address of place to be searched made SW particular

When the executing officers arrived at the place of search, they realized that the particular description of the place to be searched was wrong. The affiant (apparently) called the issuing judge and got permission to amend the warrant’s place to be searched. [That argument was waived on appeal. If telephonic or electronic warrants are permissible, why not a telephonic or electronic amendment before the search occurs? Police competence in search and seizure law should be fully rewarded, not penalized. So, even if the issue was litigated and the state lost on the merits, the good faith exception should save the search?] State v. Palmateer, 2021 Iowa App. LEXIS 131 (Feb. 17, 2021).*

Riley was decided while this 2254 petitioner’s direct appeal was pending. On post-conviction, the state court rejected his ineffective assistance of counsel claim for not raising a Riley issue because the good faith exception would sustain the search. That’s binding on habeas. Gary v. Bolling, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28920 (M.D. Ala. Feb. 12, 2021).*

This entry was posted in Particularity, Unreasonable application / § 2254(d). Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.