CA9: Oral amendment to SW to add a place to be searched never incorporated violates 4A, but GFE here because no controlling authority

Officers had a search warrant for plaintiff’s hotel room searching for evidence of a drug operation. They called the issuing judge for permission to search plaintiff’s home under the same affidavit, which was orally granted, but the warrant was not amended. The search of the home violated the Fourth Amendment’s particularity requirement, but the officers get qualified immunity because there never was a case like this that anyone could find. Manriquez v. Ensley, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 24419 (9th Cir. Aug. 30, 2022).

“Harvard argues that trial counsel should have objected on hearsay grounds to the testimony of an investigator with the sheriff’s office that M. W. disclosed that Harvard had asked her to watch pornography. But this testimony was not hearsay, as the investigator did not offer it for the truth of the matter asserted, but to explain why he looked for Harvard’s computers when executing a search warrant.” Harvard v. State, 2022 Ga. App. LEXIS 416 (Aug. 30, 2022).*

The court considered the bodycam videos on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Without ambiguity, they show plaintiff reaching for a gun after being told to put her hand up, and then she was shot. She cannot prevail. Robinson v. City of Huntsville, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 24438 (11th Cir. Aug. 30, 2022).*

This entry was posted in Admissibility of evidence, Excessive force, Good faith exception, Particularity, Qualified immunity. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.