D.Minn.: A motion to suppress is not a motion to just check the issuing judge’s work

It’s not the court’s job to review the warrant application to see if it’s up to par. Defendant’s motion to suppress was nothing more than a motion to check the state judge’s work. United States v. White, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79104 (D. Minn. May 13, 2013):

Defendant argues that the affidavit supporting the February 4, 2013 search warrant for the installation of a Mobile Tracking Device on a 2002 Chevy minivan and for GPS monitoring of the tracking device is deficient because the information contained in the affidavit is stale. With regard to the other seven search warrants at issue, Defendant argues generally that they lack probable cause and requests that the Court review the search warrants for probable cause. The Court notes that Defendant has done nothing to sustain his burden of proving that the evidence seized in these seven searches should be suppressed. His request amounts to no more than Defendant asking the Court to double-check to make sure that the state-court judges got it right when they signed the search warrants. Nevertheless, this Court has carefully reviewed all of the warrant applications at issue and determined that each application showed probable cause to search and the warrants were properly issued.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.