CO: Relevant item not named in warrant was in plain view during SW execution

Defendant was a suspect in identity theft using a credit card from a stolen backpack, and she was on video taking it. A search warrant was issued for her house, and the police did not seek the distinctive shirt she was wearing in the warrant. The shirt was found during the search, and the plain view doctrine justified its seizure. They were lawfully in her house on the warrant when they saw it. People v. Jauch, 2013 Colo. App. LEXIS 1375 (August 29, 2013).

Defendant’s release condition that he not have access to sexually explicit material includes a provision that LEOs can be enlisted in the search, but it is not construed to mean that LEOs can do it without a PO instigating it. Johnston v. State, 2013 Alas. App. LEXIS 90 (September 4, 2013).*

Defendant is not entitled to a Franks hearing on how child pornography sniffing software worked because it wouldn’t change the outcome. The government submitted declarations that the officers knew what they were doing when using it. [Essentially, the request for a Franks hearing here is a fishing expedition without the “substantial preliminary showing” the case requires.] United States v. Norris, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125640 (E.D. Cal. August 30, 2013).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.