OR: The burden on whether the affidavit was with the warrant at the search is on defendant

When the affidavit satisfies particularity but the defendant alleges the warrant doesn’t, he has the burden of proving that both were not attached to each other or at the scene of the search for guidance. State v. Goode, 335 Or. App. 108 (Sep. 18, 2024). (Since the defendant carries the burden of proof on warranted searches in general, this seems logical. There are also the questions of: (1) did the search even exceed the limits? (If not, what’s the problem?) (2) Was the affiant involved in the search to make sure the limitations were followed?)

Defendant was apprehended apparently with the use of CSLI by a cross-designated state-federal officer. An AUSA showed at the state suppression hearing and objected to any testimony about federal protocols and this CSLI. The trial court found defendant didn’t meet his burden of proof. On appeal, his appellate arguments differ from the trial court arguments, and it’s affirmed. Walker v. State, 2024 Fla. App. LEXIS 7247 (Fla. 4th DCA Sep. 18, 2024).* One judge concurred that the arguments did differ, but defendant now gets a chance to litigate this on post-conviction. What about the Sixth Amendment right to confrontation and compulsory production which goes unaddressed?

Defendant’s motion to suppress was properly denied without a hearing. The affidavit for the warrant showed probable cause on the lawfully obtained information. People v. Edwards, 2024 NY Slip Op 04468, 2024 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4628 (2d Dept. Sep. 18, 2024).*

This entry was posted in Burden of pleading, Cell site location information, Particularity, Probable cause. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.