S.D.Fla.: After first SW attacked, second SW supported by independent sources

When defendant filed a motion to suppress, the government sought a second search warrant for the same telephone not using the prior information. The USMJ holds the second warrant shows probable cause but the independent source doctrine not satisfied. On review, the USDJ finds the independent source doctrine satisfied by other information. United States v. Vernelus, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 202031 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 6, 2024)*:

During the hearing before the Magistrate Judge, Agent Lavelle testified that the basis for the federal search warrant was other communications that Defendant had with co-conspirators from other devices already in the FBI’s possession and social media posts. In addition, Agent Lavelle stated that, based on his already active investigation into the Little Haiti Vultures gang, he would have applied for a warrant to search the Defendant’s phone if the City of Miami had not obtained a warrant. While the Report focuses on Agent Lavelle’s statement during cross examination that “a reason” for getting the federal search warrant was because of the motion to suppress, [ECF No. p. 152], that motivation is not dispositive. The record is clear that law enforcement had probable cause to obtain the federal search warrant without the information obtained through the state authorized examination of the Defendant’s phone. To suppress this evidence because of the defective state search warrant would put the government in a “worse” position than it would have been had no error occurred—an overly restrictive result contrary to the spirit and purpose of the doctrine. See Nix, 467 U.S. at 443. Accordingly, the Court finds that the independent source doctrine applies, and the Motion to Suppress must be denied.

Even if the independent source doctrine did not apply to the federal search warrant, the Court finds that much of the evidence obtained from the Defendant’s phone is otherwise admissible because it was independently obtained from other sources. As documented in its supplemental memorandum, [ECF No. 281], the government obtained a group chat from the phone of co-conspirator Jovis St Luc and a photo and video from Instagram supporting the conspiracy count against the Defendant. Therefore, that evidence is also admissible for that reason.

This entry was posted in Independent source. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.