A wiretap order [inadvertently] failed to include \u201celectronic communications\u201d in his search clause but the officers and the judge talked about it. This is Sheppard good faith. \u201cThe Court finds that the issuing judge and executing officers both understood the intended scope of the wiretap authorization, and that the authorization included interception of text messages. The Court also finds that the officers\u2019 reliance on this understanding was \u2018objectively reasonable.\u2019 See Massachusetts v. Sheppard, 468 U.S. 981, 989-90 (1984) (\u2018[W]e refuse to rule that an officer is required to disbelieve a judge who has just advised him, by word and by action, that the warrant he possesses authorizes him to conduct the search he has requested.\u2019). As a result, the KBI\u2019s interception of text messages falls within the good-faith exception to the Fourth Amendment\u2019s exclusionary rule, and the Court refuses to suppress them on the basis that the orders authorized interception of wire communications only.\u201d United States v. Banks, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120779 (D. Kan. August 29, 2014).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
A wiretap order [inadvertently] failed to include \u201celectronic communications\u201d in his search clause but the officers and the judge talked about it. This is Sheppard good faith. \u201cThe Court finds that the issuing judge and executing officers both understood the … Continue reading