E.D.Tenn.: A lab report used to support PC doesn’t have to be included in the affidavit

“As to the omissions cited by defendant, the Court concludes that they do not detract from the probable cause analysis, as such elaborate specificity is not required. See Gates, 462 U.S. at 235 (explaining that search warrant affidavits ‘are normally drafted by nonlawyers in the midst and haste of a criminal investigation,’ such that ‘[t]echnical requirements of elaborate specificity’ are not required in evaluating probable cause in a search warrant). Defendant’s assertion that the Certificates are meaningless without a signature does not persuade the Court, as it is ‘not [to] scrutinize a warrant affidavit in a “hypertechnical”’ manner. See Sanders, 106 F.4th at 463. [¶] Neither does the fact that operator of the LightLab Analyzer was not identified or that the operator’s qualifications or the specific method by which the operator tested the samples were not included in the affidavit. … And defendant does not identify any authority that would suggest that the magistrate, supplied with such information, should have asked for the qualifications of the individual with the Tennessee Dangerous Drug Task Force who tested the samples or any further information about testing before finding there was probable cause to issue the search warrant.” United States v. Manning, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 155072 (E.D. Tenn. Aug. 29, 2024).

As to handcuffs too tight during arrest, “Shotwell bears the burden of proving excessiveness, but he falls short. … When tight handcuffs cause only a de minimis injury, the handcuffing is not excessive. … And Shotwell admits his wrist injuries were temporary and minimal, causing only redness lasting a few hours. … That is much less than even ‘superficial lacerations,’ which themselves are not enough.” Shotwell v. Del. Dep’t of Sec., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 155058 (D. Del. Aug. 28, 2024).*

This entry was posted in Excessive force, Probable cause. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.