N.D.Miss.: An actual “bare bones” affidavit for SW leads to suppression

A “bare bones” affidavit for search warrant in a drug case attested to over Facetime with no real support showed “A lackadaisical approach to constitutional safeguards demonstrates a disregard for the judicial system.” Motion to suppress granted; no good faith exception here. United States v. Weaver, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77779 (N.D. Miss. Apr. 22, 2025):

This case raises critical issues concerning an individual’s Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights. In light of noticeable erosions of constitutional safeguards, the Court finds it imperative to remind the State and its agencies of the importance of adhering to the rule of law.

. . .

The inherent juxtaposition between the two above pronouncements confounds this Court. The good-faith exception appears to serve as a catch-all loophole for an officer’s failure to consider the contents of the affidavit supporting the warrant when conducting a search. Taken to its outer limits, this exception would excuse an officer’s attempt, or lack thereof, to establish sufficient probable cause when that officer himself drafted the affidavit in support of the search warrant and then relied “in good faith” on such warrant. This Court finds it paramount to emphasize the Supreme Court’s warning that an officer may not obtain a search warrant based on a bare bones affidavit “and then rely on colleagues who are ignorant of the circumstances under which the warrant was obtained to conduct the search,” United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 922 n.24 (1984), or conduct the search himself based on his own bare bones affidavit. United States v. Barrington, 806 F.2d 529, 532 (5th Cir. 1986).

That is precisely what occurred in the instant case. Officer Mittan drafted the affidavit which contained the Underlying Facts and Circumstances describing the three controlled purchases of crack cocaine and a boilerplate recitation of his knowledge based on training and experience in narcotics investigations. The affiant’s statements of the three controlled purchases made by the informant did not specify the amount of crack cocaine purchased, nor did they indicate that the substances were authenticated through any form of drug testing. Furthermore, Officer Mittan testified at the suppression hearing that he was uncertain whether the substances had been tested at all. Tellingly, the affiant’s statements indicated that the “CI was searched for money and contraband with none being found.” The government argues that the purpose of this statement was to show that the informant was searched before and after the controlled purchases to ensure he did not arrive with or leave with crack cocaine on his person. Officer Mittan testified that the confusion surrounding his sworn statements was an oversight on his part. The Court will accept Officer Mittan’s excusable neglect. Nevertheless, the affidavit also failed to include any specific facts regarding the request to search for evidence of fraud or money laundering.

. . .

The Court does not wish to highlight the shortcomings of Officer Mittan or Judge Kelley; in fact, the Court commends each of them for their honesty, sincerity and candor in testimony. However, it is imperative that the State be reminded of the inherent constitutional rights afforded to every defendant and the necessary practices and protocols protecting these rights. A lackadaisical approach to constitutional safeguards demonstrates a disregard for the judicial system. The Court cannot, in good faith, allow the admission of evidence seized pursuant to an invalid search warrant. The affiant in this case did not provide a substantial basis for determining the existence of probable cause as to any of the requested items to be seized. Furthermore, the affidavit bears none of the indicia of probable cause identified by the Fifth Circuit, rendering it a bare bones affidavit. Consequently, Officer Mittan’s reliance on the invalid search warrant cannot be excused, and this Court must grant Mr. Weaver’s motion to suppress as to the physical evidence seized.