Typographical error (4311 v. 4511) in affidavit was just that. There was a photograph of 4511, the officer had been to 4511 with the CI, and there was no 4311. This was in handwritten additions made to the affidavit at the request of the magistrate after the officer expanded on the showing of probable cause. United States v. Johnson, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67429 (D. D.C. September 5, 2008):<\/p>\n
Detective Sepeck’s handwritten additions to his affidavit were clearly made “in the midst and haste of a criminal investigation.” Ventresca<\/em><\/a>, 380 U.S. at 108. Those additions were made in front of the Superior Court judge and at her request, after Detective Sepeck had described these further efforts at corroboration by law enforcement. The simple error in the address numbers was not noted and had no effect on the fundamentals of the affidavit — or, more importantly, the facial validity of the Search Warrant itself upon which the executing officers relied.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Comment:<\/em> Unspoken with the citation to Ventresca<\/em> is the fact that the magistrate requested the officer to add detail to the affidavit to further support the probable cause. This is what a magistrate should do. If there is additional information, add it in. Slight mistakes should be overlooked as long as there is no reasonable mistake about the place to be searched. And, under Ventresca<\/em>, at 109, “Although in a particular case it may not be easy to determine when an affidavit demonstrates the existence of probable cause, the resolution of doubtful or marginal cases in this area should be largely determined by the preference to be accorded to warrants.”<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading