CA10: Overlong stop didn’t cause independent search incident

Defendant was subjected to a search incident for false identification. His overlong stop otherwise didn’t cause that. United States v. Anderson, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 5997 (10th Cir. Mar. 14, 2023).*

“Teixeira struggles to throw shade on the reliability of K.M.’s statements. He claims, in a conclusory fashion, that search warrant affidavits are ‘prone to error’ and, thus, inherently unreliable. This generalization, though, is of dubious force. Shaming search warrant affidavits on a categorical basis is no more persuasive than arguing, say, that all police officers are liars or that all criminal defendants are inherently incredible witnesses. Each search warrant affidavit is distinctive and — like any other affidavit — must be judged on its own merits.” United States v. Teixeira, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 5828 (1st Cir. Mar. 10, 2023).* “Prone to error” means nothing under Gates and Leon. There are often nonmaterial errors. They are done in haste. That’s to be expected. Nonmaterial errors don’t affect the outcome.

Defendant’s Franks challenge fails both prongs: no showing of deliberate or reckless falsehood or that it was material to the finding of probable cause. United States v. Torres-Rojas, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41038 (D.P.R. Mar. 10, 2023).*

This entry was posted in Franks doctrine, Independent source, Search incident, Standards of review. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.