D.Ariz.: The gov’t failed to show that the search was by consent; by all accounts, the consent form was apparently signed after the search

Consent to enter after a knock-and-talk in Spanish was granted, but the search was found not by consent. It was not disputed that backup was called to the house via dispatch 17 minutes before the consent to search was signed. United States v. Cruz-Mejia, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100947 (D. Ariz. July 5, 2011)*:

The transcript then reflects several time entries related to each communication with dispatch. On page 5, the transcript reflects a time entry of “13:43,” or 1:43 p.m., followed by a request for “a third unit” at Cruz-Mejia’s address. (Id. at 5.) Thus, based on the testimony of Sergeant Esquivel and Officer Pina, when that call for back-up was made, the search was about to begin, was ongoing, or had been completed. However, the communication occurred 17 minutes prior to 2:00 p.m., the time when Mexley Martinez signed the consent form. This timeline was not rebutted in any way by the Government and is entirely consistent with Martinez’s claim that she signed the consent form only because the officers had already conducted the search and found all the weapons and she thought, “why not sign it.” (TR2 92-93.) Thus, the search was performed without consent.

Officers were on the lookout for a Crown Victoria with a particularly LPN suspected of selling drugs at an apartment complex. When the vehicle showed up again a citizen informant called the police to tell them that it was back, and that was reasonable suspicion for defendant’s stop within five minutes of the call in the apartment complex. The citizen informant’s tip was entitled to more credibility. United States v. Cornielius, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100884 (E.D. Tenn. July 26, 2011).*

The child pornography search warrant in this case was not stale just because the information was about six months old since child pornography is likely to be kept. There is no bright-line rule with child pornography. United States v. Muñoz, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100836 (D. Minn. July 5, 2011).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.