CA11: Magistrate who came to the scene to sign SW was still neutral and detached

The issuing magistrate was still neutral and detached. He came to the location of the search to assist in getting the warrant issued, but he stayed away from the building and signed the paperwork. He did not get involved or “investigate” like the issuing magistrate in Lo-Ji Sales did, other than testifying he admitted smelling marijuana there, but it did not influence his decision. United States v. Wrenn, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 15848 (11th Cir. June 23, 2023):

The record supports the ruling that a neutral and detached magistrate issued the warrant to search Wrenn’s home. The magistrate reviewed the warrant application on-site as a matter of convenience to the officers, who were far out in the county. He stayed at Burgess’s truck and did not approach the home or attempt to investigate the facts contained in the warrant affidavit, such as by personally inspecting the electric meter or walking close to the home to determine whether a marijuana odor was coming from the home. He did not substitute his own judgment for the officers’ judgment because Burgess already had written in his affidavit that he smelled marijuana before the magistrate arrived. And the magistrate did not participate in the execution of the warrant, but instead detached himself from the operation by directing the officers to wait to execute the warrant until after he had left the property. See id. at 326-28. Moreover, the district court found that the magistrate credibly testified at the suppression hearing that smelling marijuana would not have influenced his determination that the four corners of the warrant affidavit contained probable cause based on Burgess’s knowledge of the electric bills, the several pounds of marijuana in Wrenn’s car, the rapidly moving electric meter at his home, and Burgess’s detection of a strong odor of marijuana emanating from Wrenn’s home. See United States v. Holt, 777 F.3d 1234, 1255 (11th Cir. 2015).