N.D.Iowa: USMJ recommends grant of motion to suppress; second SW to cure defects in first not proper for attenuation doctrine

The government admits that the warrant lacked particularity, but they sought to use the good faith exception to sustain a limited search. The problem there is that the person who sought the warrant didn’t search it, and he instructed the searcher to search the entire phone. Therefore, the good faith exception did not apply to the particularity claim. The officer’s candid motive to get a second search warrant to cure the first doesn’t satisfy the attenuation doctrine, and the motion to suppress should be granted. United States v. Gross, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126677 (N.D. Iowa July 3, 2025) (R&R). The court surveys the cases and concludes:

The majority of cases support that the Government is not prohibited from obtaining a second search warrant for purposes of the independent source doctrine in response to a motion to suppress. But the Government must still meet its burden of establishing the independence of the second search by a preponderance of the evidence. Here, the Government has not done so. The court has no information on the second search, other than that the second search warrant was “executed.” Were law enforcement able to extract the data from the smartphone for a second time, or did they simply re-search the prior mirror image obtained using the first warrant? If they performed the extraction anew, how did they unlock the phone? Testimony supports that extracting data from the smartphone might have been impossible once the phone locked-and surely, the phone was locked after being in an evidence locker for a year. The court has no information on if or how law enforcement performed the second search and whether they used information obtained from the first search. Under the circumstances, the Government has not met its burden of proof.

This entry was posted in Attenuation, Particularity. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.