“Hill argues Agent Fulmer’s affidavit omitted information previously obtained during the investigation and which was contained in an affidavit submitted with a wiretap application filed in the Eastern District of Michigan in December 2016. Hill, however, does not explain how the omitted information, even if I were to assume it is material, would have had any impact on Judge Zouhary’s probable cause finding. Hill does not contend the information is exculpatory — in fact, the omitted information was cumulative and would have supported the probable-cause determination. I conclude Hill is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing.” United States v. Hill, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118075 (N.D. Ohio July 16, 2018).*
“Here, Special Agent Sweeney’s affidavit in support of the warrant [for defendant’s cell phone] goes well beyond what is required to demonstrate probable cause.” And the details are …. United States v. Carton, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117242 (S.D. N.Y. July 13, 2018).*
“First, Fails argues that his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated when he was arrested because he was never read his Miranda rights and never signed a card waiving those rights. Second, he argues that his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated because he was never served a warrant before his arrest and never notified of the items that were to be seized under a search warrant. Finally, he argues that the state’s material witness never signed a sworn witness statement before the arrest warrant was validated, as required under Florida law and Fed. R. Crim. P. 3. In support of his claims, Fails cites Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103, 95 S. Ct. 854, 43 L. Ed. 2d 54 (1975).” In re Fails, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 19470 (11th Cir. July 16, 2018).
Based on everything provided by the CI, defendant doesn’t get a Franks hearing as to the existence of probable cause or a potential (at worst, and probably not) negligent reference to address. United States v. Thrasher, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117299 (D. Ore. July 14, 2018).*
“Here, the totality of the circumstances reveals enough to get the Government over the goal line, though perhaps not with a lot of breathing room. First, O’Bryan was a known informant. That means that O’Bryan “would [have been] subject to prosecution for making a false report,” and thus that his statements are “entitled to far greater weight than those of an anonymous source.” … That is one factor in the Government’s favor-and a major distinction between this case and cases like J.L. (which Stokes cites, see Appellant’s Br. at 12; Reply Br. at 4) that instead featured anonymous tips.” Moreover, the CI had proved reliable in the past. United States v. Stokes, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 19442 (6th Cir. July 16, 2018).*
“The instant motion asks that the Court suppress 280 bags of heroin seized from Defendant Mr. Vaquiz’s person during a search incident to arrest on January 29, 2016. Mr. Vaquiz specifically argues that officers lacked probable cause to arrest him because they relied upon the unreliable and suspect information of informant, J.F. However, because the factual record demonstrates that J.F. proved her reliability on numerous occasions and that the information provided by her was often independently corroborated by the officers in this case, I disagree. My reasoning follows.” United States v. Vaquiz, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115709 (M.D. Pa. July 12, 2018).*
NY Daily News: A chokehold on justice: The NYPD is right to lose patience with the feds:
Four years ago today, Eric Garner tried to raise a few extra dollars by selling individual cigarettes. His day and his life would end not — as so many similar cases before and since — in a hail of police bullets.
Defendant posited much information that was omitted from the affidavit for the search warrant, but that would have created an implausible scenario that didn’t even make sense to the appeals court. “Even if we assume that the challenged statements and omissions were either deliberate or reckless — a matter that we need not reach — it is clear that correcting the defendant’s weight and adding in the omitted information would not have vitiated the finding of probable cause. Neither the alleged misstatement about the defendant’s weight nor the omitted information was critical to the finding of probable cause.” United States v. Barbosa, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 19498 (1st Cir. July 16, 2018).
“Despite the R&R’s correct conclusion that probable cause supported each of the warrants, the Defendant’s Objections attempt to attack the existence of probable cause through speculation and supposition.” Defendant’s Franks challenge because of omission of details about the CI essentially is speculation. United States v. Crawford, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116159 (E.D. Ky. July 12, 2018).*
Defendant counsel was not ineffective for not pursuing a Fourth Amendment claim that the name in the arrest warrant was included by mistake. Officers told the magistrate as soon as they discovered it. Defendant’s arrest was still on probable cause. United States v. Alexa, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115728 (E.D. Pa. July 12, 2018):
(1) “In sum, the warrant here (i) identified the items to be seized in relation to specific Subject Offenses, (ii) included an illustrative list of records to limit the discretion of executing agents, and (iii) provided a sufficient description of the categories of items to be seized given the nature and circumstances of the crimes at issue. Accordingly, the warrant was adequately particularized and suppression on this ground is inappropriate.” (2) The officers detailed specific information that electronic devices would be found in defendant’s home. “These facts, taken together, lend ample support to the common-sense conclusion reached by the magistrate judge here, namely that probable cause existed to believe (i) that defendant’s electronic devices would contain evidence relevant to the Subject Offenses and (ii) that the devices in question would be located at defendant’s residence.” (3) “In sum, the warrant here also satisfied the breadth requirement of the Fourth Amendment by adequately limiting the scope of the warrant by the probable cause on which the warrant was based. Accordingly, suppression on this ground is unwarranted.” (4) Even if the search warrant was issued without probable cause, the good faith exception would save it. (5) The search warrant was not executed unreasonably. United States v. Manafort, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116033 (E.D. Va. July 12, 2018).*
Defendant kept stuff at her parents’ house, which was searched with a warrant for her stuff. She lacked standing because it was merely a storage place shared with others. The search warrant was narrowed by the district court with partial suppression because of time limitations, and this was proper. United States v. Chang, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 19347 (9th Cir. July 12, 2018). (Similar to Manafort‘s case.)
Defendant’s house was searched in a sex trafficking operation. He was accused of keeping Thai women working. It was reasonable to conclude that there was no other base of operations that the government could see, so his house was a likely source of where the proceeds and the drugs to keep the women high were kept. The warrant was not stale because the information supporting it was from 2009-2017. United States v. Morris, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116210 (D. Minn. July 12, 2018).*