E.D.Mich.: The SW failed particularity, but the govt proved inevitable discovery

“Defendant seeks to suppress all evidence seized from the subsequent 2018 search in this case because he argues the 2018 warrant was unconstitutionally overbroad. Although this Court concludes the 2018 search warrant violated the Fourth Amendment’s particularity requirement because it could have specified relevant dates or types of records to be seized, the inevitable discovery exception to the exclusionary rule applies and renders suppression inappropriate. Thus, Defendant’s Motion will be denied.” A victim reported the crimes. “Here, the Government has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that law enforcement would have inevitably and independently discovered Defendant’s conduct giving rise to the 2022 indictment-Defendant’s alleged credit card schemes-regardless of the constitutionality of the 2018 search of Suite 8 relating to Defendant’s alleged email schemes.” United States v. Demasi, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21553 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 7, 2024).*

Part of the affidavit relied on a CI but the officer corroborated all that he could, and there was probable cause on the totality. United States v. Dechristoforo, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21257 (D. Mass. Feb. 6, 2024).*

Defendant sought to withdraw a guilty plea on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel which included a claim that defense counsel didn’t explore the legality of the search in the case. The search wasn’t invalid. Driskell v. State, 2024 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 53 (Feb. 7, 2024).*

This entry was posted in Ineffective assistance, Inevitable discovery, Informant hearsay. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.