D.Minn.: Issuance of an arrest warrant can justify a tracking warrant for suspect

“The Court agrees with essential premise of the R&R: that probable cause existed for the tracking warrant because there was probable cause for the arrest warrant. First, Mr. Ellerman cites no authority for the idea that using a judicially approved tracking warrant to locate the subject of a lawful arrest warrant violates the Fourth Amendment, and the Court has found no cases that support such an argument.” United States v. Ellerman, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1550 (D. Minn. Jan. 5, 2023).

The person consenting to this entry had apparent authority, and a gun was found in plain view. United States v. Sanchez, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 174 (10th Cir. Jan. 5, 2023).*

Defendant’s post trial Franks motion based on trial testimony fails. “To the extent any tension could be found between the testimony and the affidavits, defendant has not provided any evidence to prove that the sworn affidavits, rather than the sworn testimony, were false.” United States v. McKinney, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 175 (10th Cir. Jan. 5, 2023).*

This entry was posted in Consent, Franks doctrine, Tracking warrant. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.