{"id":2311,"date":"2008-12-24T06:55:15","date_gmt":"2008-07-30T19:11:25","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2008-08-02T19:22:21","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=2311","title":{"rendered":"While one affidavit misstated quality of informant, SW was justified under second affidavit"},"content":{"rendered":"

Affidavit for search warrant was supported by two affidavits, and one was defective for stating that a CI was actually a concerned citizen. While “troubling,” it was not reversible error because the other affidavit provided probable cause, too. State v. Keener<\/a>, 2008 UT App 288, 191 P.3d 835, 609 Utah Adv. Rep. 19 (2008):<\/p>\n

[*P15] Because the two affidavits were considered together, Judge Atherton was not misled regarding Lambson being a concerned citizen with a presumption of reliability. Nonetheless, even considering that Lambson was afforded only the low level of reliability of a criminal informant, when we consider the other information presented in the affidavit under a totality-of-the-circumstances analysis, Judge Atherton had a substantial basis to conclude that evidence of wrongdoing would be found at Keener’s residence. And although we recognize that the state constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and seizures is broader than the similar federal constitutional protection, Keener’s argument in this regard is not warranted under the circumstances of this case. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s denial of Keener’s motion to suppress the evidence obtained from the search of his residence.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Defendant appears not to have preserved his suppression motion by changing the issue from his privacy interest in the premises to whether a plain view was adequate. Nevertheless, going to the merits of the search claim, the evidence admitted against him from the search was harmless at best. State v. Harding<\/a>, 221 Ore. App. 294, 189 P.3d 1259 (2008).*<\/p>\n

Trash left out for collection provided probable cause for a search warrant for defendant’s house. Locher v. State<\/a>, 293 Ga. App. 67, 666 S.E.2d 468 (2008).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2311","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2311","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=2311"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2311\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=2311"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=2311"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=2311"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}