N.D.Okla.: Cross designated tribal officer could obtain state SW then used in federal court

A Cherokee Nation officer was cross-deputized to act for the “City of Tulsa, the State of Oklahoma, the United States, and the Cherokee Nation.” “Second, the Supreme Court has found that reviewing courts should give ‘great deference’ to a magistrate’s decision to issue a warrant; ‘affidavits are normally drafted by nonlawyers in the midst and haste of a criminal investigation’; and courts should not invalidate warrants ‘by interpreting affidavit[s] in a hypertechnical, rather than commonsense, manner.’ Gates, 462 U.S. at 235-36 (internal quotations omitted and alterations in original). Thus, Officer Blackwell’s errors in the affidavit do not justify invalidating the Cherokee Nation district judge’s decision to issue a search warrant for a residence within the bounds of the Cherokee Nation.” Moreover, everything was done in good faith. United States v. Hutton, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3036 (N.D.Okla. Jan. 6, 2022).* [What about just plain reasonableness under Virginia v. Moore?]

Plaintiff has no Fourth Amendment rights inside a prison. Moore v. Eldorado Corr. Facility, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3060 (D.Kan. Jan. 6, 2022).*

This entry was posted in Prison and jail searches, Reasonableness. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.