AL: No reference to time in CI’s statement recounted in affidavit made SW stale

The affidavit for the search warrant was based on CI information that was not clear as to the time being recent. The officer sought to rehabilitate the search warrant in the face of a staleness challenge by testifying at the suppression hearing that he thought he told the issuing magistrate that the information was within the last 24 hours, but he was unclear as to that. Under Ex parte Green, 15 So. 3d 489 (Ala. 2008), the warrant fails. McIntosh v. State, 71 So. 3d 41 (Ala. Crim. App. 2010).*

Defendant was driving a Cadillac Escalade in a neighborhood suspiciously, and the officer felt that he was casing houses for burglary. When defendant crossed the centerline, he pulled him over. Defendant seemed under the influence, but not enough to arrest. The officer was going to let him go but asked for consent, which defendant gave. The drug dog was in the patrol car, came out, and alerted. It was all valid. State v. Ellis, 2010 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 91 (October 1, 2010).*

The mistaken delivery and later police search case of Walter v. United States did not apply to a computer brought to Best Buy’s Geek Squad to remove viruses. While working on the computer, viruses would apparently be removed but would reappear, and they were isolated to files which had child pornography in them. When defendant turned the computer over to the Geek Squad for virus repair, he permitted them to do anything to it to fix it. They called the police, as they were supposed to. This is not an expectation of privacy that public is going to find reasonable. Melton v. State, 69 So. 3d 916 (Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 2010),* certiorari denied Ex parte Melton, 69 So. 3d 932 (Ala. 2011).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.