This search warrant in bank robbery case wasn\u2019t stale when it was issued about seven weeks after the robbery for defendant\u2019s home. Defendant had been identified as the robber, and the affidavit showed a reasonable probability, based on officer experience, that the proceeds of the robbery or clothing worn during the robbery would likely still be found there [which is true]. United States v. Smialek, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 178574 (D. Minn. Oct. 17, 2018):
\n<\/p>\n
Here, United States Magistrate Judge Franklin L. Noel had a sufficient basis for concluding that there was probable cause to believe that evidence of the robbery would be found at Defendant’s residence, and the information linking Defendant to the residence identified to be searched was not stale. Special Agent Walden states in his affidavit in support of the search warrant that after March 10, 2018 (the day of the robbery), law enforcement received a tip from Defendant’s former co-worker. The co-worker identified Defendant from still photos derived from the bank’s digital surveillance system of the robbery, described a vehicle that the company gave Defendant while employed and which Defendant kept possession of after the employment ended, and provided Defendant’s forwarding address as Apartment 4 at a certain address in Columbia Heights. (Gov’t Ex. 6 at \u00b6 11.) After receiving this information, officers observed the car described by the former co-worker, which was confirmed registered to Defendant, at this address on numerous occasions on different dates. (Gov’t Ex. 6 \u00b6 12.) Officers also confirmed with the building owner that Defendant lived in Apartment 4 and was listed as the resident of Apartment 4. (Gov’t Ex. 6 at \u00b6 13.) This information was obtained sometime between the day of the robbery and the signing of the search warrant on April 30, 2018, which means that it was obtained within eight weeks of the signing of the search warrant. SA Walden states in his affidavit that “[b]ased on [his] training and experience, it is known that bank robbers use their residence and vehicles to store clothing, bags and other items used in the commission of the crime, as well as illegally obtained cash proceeds or items purchased with illegally obtained proceeds.” (Gov’t Ex. 6 at \u00b6 17.) He states further that “[w]hile some robbers dispose of some of these items immediately, [he] ha[s] also observed that many bank robbers keep such items in their homes and vehicles indefinitely after a robbery, particularly in the case of personal clothing, jackets, and cash proceeds.” (Id.)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The court cites a child porn case in support, but that’s hardly relevant to the subject of the search and why the object of the search is kept.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
This search warrant in bank robbery case wasn\u2019t stale when it was issued about seven weeks after the robbery for defendant\u2019s home. Defendant had been identified as the robber, and the affidavit showed a reasonable probability, based on officer experience, … Continue reading