{"id":2322,"date":"2008-12-24T11:23:33","date_gmt":"2008-08-02T05:20:06","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2008-08-05T05:25:25","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=2322","title":{"rendered":"CA10: Garrison<\/em> applies to permit a search of a separate tenancy discovered after the raid started that could not be objectively determined from the outside"},"content":{"rendered":"

Officers were allowed to make a reasonable mistake as to the scope of the warrant for a search of the premises that actually included a separate renter they did not know about, as in Garrison<\/em><\/a>. The good faith exception saves it, anyway. United States v. Esterline<\/a>, 287 Fed. Appx. 693 (10th Cir. 2008):<\/p>\n

Even if we were to assume for appellate purposes the warrant was overbroad, we conclude the officers’ failure to realize this overbreadth was objectively reasonable. The district court found the trailer to be a single residence with roommates, not a multi-unit dwelling. The finding is fully supported by the evidence. Nothing inside or out would suggest the trailer contained multiple separate units. The residence is identified by a single address and the components were melded into one large structure interconnected with common passageways. The residential area contained only one common living room and kitchen centrally located between Counts and Esterline’s bedrooms.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Informant’s corroborated information that defendant kept drugs in his bedroom but sold them outside the premises was probable cause to search the house anyway. United States v. Briggs, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57339 (W.D. Ky. July 28, 2008):<\/p>\n

Based upon the information provided by the anonymous caller and the corroborating observations of the officers, the Court concludes that the magistrate had a substantial basis for concluding that evidence of a crime would be found in the Defendant’s home. This holding is further bolstered by the rule set forth in United States v. Newton <\/em>which provides that evidence that a defendant is a drug dealer with “continual and ongoing operations” in and of itself creates probable cause to search his home. 389 F.3d 631 (6th Cir. 2004), vacated on other grounds<\/em>, 546 U.S. 803, 126 S. Ct. 280, 163 L. Ed. 2d 35 (2005); see also United States v. Bethal<\/em>, 245 Fed. Appx. 460, 467 (6th Cir. 2007).<\/p><\/blockquote>\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-2322","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2322","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=2322"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2322\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=2322"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=2322"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=2322"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}