N.D.Cal.: SW for defendant’s house for bloodstained clothing and weapon was valid

The affidavit for the search warrant in a stabbing case established probable cause to search defendant’s home for evidence of the crime when they were looking for bloodstained clothing, DNA, and the weapon. [Nexus not mentioned, but that’s what the court is referring to.] Gang related information was properly included in the affidavit because of what the assailant said during the attack. United States v. Guevara, 745 F. Supp. 2d 1039 (N.D. Cal. 2010):

Here, the warrant was not overbroad as there was probable cause to seize all items described in the warrant — a DNA sample, a knife or similar cutting instrument (the suspect weapon), bloodstained clothing that may have been worn during the stabbings, and items related to Mara Salvatrucha. The Lau affidavit specified that Mission Female Victim identified Mr. Guevara as the male assailant and Mission Witness No. 1 stated Mr. Guevara resembled the male assailant. From this, Judge Kahn reasonably concluded that there was a fair probability that evidence of the stabbings would be found at Mr. Guevara’s residence, in his vehicle, or on his person. Additionally, unlike Millender v. County of Los Angeles, __ F.3d __, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 17673, 2010 WL 3307491 (9th Cir. Aug. 24, 2010), the affidavit established probable cause that Mr. Guevara’s suspected gang-affiliation was directly related to the stabbings. The Lau affidavit explained that the male assailant yelled “MS” and “Mara Salvatrucha” during the stabbings, indicating the stabbings were likely gang-motivated.

Defendant was arrested in his RV at an RV park, and it was his home requiring a warrant or exigent circumstances to enter, neither of which the police had. His consent was obtained when he was facedown in handcuffs and the officer likely had his hand on his gun, so the consent was vitiated. However, officers got a search warrant based on probable cause of identity theft and only one paragraph of many involved the consent. Removing reference to that still showed probable cause, and the search warrant was valid and the product of the consent was thus valid under inevitable discovery. United States v. Kapis, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107637 (D. Ore. October 7, 2010).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.