D.Minn.: Pleading warrant process “irregularities” without showing anything prejudicial insufficient

Defendant’s perceived “irregularities” with the warrants raising “troubling and unanswered questions concerning the integrity of the warrant process” essentially invites the court to speculate where he doesn’t. The court won’t do that. United States v. Jones, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50402 (D. Minn. Mar. 15, 2021):

Finally, Jones contends that “irregularities” with the warrants “raise[] troubling and unanswered questions concerning the integrity of the warrant process.” (Obj. at 12-13.) Jones notes that there are two versions of the warrant permitting a search of the victim’s Facebook account: one that Officer Arguedas signed and another that he did not. (Id.) And while Jones acknowledges that he lacks standing to challenge the search warrant for the victim’s Facebook account, he imputes the irregularities in that warrant to the other warrants because Officer Arguedas used the same process to apply for all four warrants. (Obj. at 13.)

A warrant must be “supported by Oath or affirmation.” U.S. Const. amend. IV. Jones cites no authority for the proposition that the officer-applicant must sign a warrant—as opposed to the affidavit or oath supporting the warrant—for it to be valid. The First Circuit has held that the issuing judge need not sign a warrant, United States v. Lyons, 740 F.3d 702, 724-26 (1st Cir. 2014), and if the judge need not sign the warrant for it to be valid, the Court sees no reason to impose a requirement that the applicant-officer must sign it. The Tenth Circuit has also declined to do so, affirming a denial of a motion to suppress when the warrant applicant failed to sign the affidavit. United States v. Williamson, 859 F.3d 843, 864 (10th Cir. 2017). Like in Williamson, Officer Arguedas was under oath when he applied for the search warrant, and the Judge signed the warrant. (Hr’g Tr. at 84); Williamson, 859 F.3d at 864-65. Officer Arguedas also testified that he was truthful and did not make any misrepresentations in applying for the warrant. (Hr’g Tr. at 84.) Based on these facts, the Court rejects Jones’s invitation to indulge in speculation about the cause of perceived “irregularities” in the warrant.