Lengthy affidavit for search warrant in a multi-defendant conspiracy case failed to show probable cause as to this defendant, and it was so lacking that the good faith exception did not apply as to this defendant. United States v. Graska, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112541 (E.D. Tenn. November 10, 2009):<\/p>\n
There is nothing whatsoever to indicate that the first or second exceptions apply in this case. However, while this affidavit is not “bare bones” in the usual sense, it is detailed as to other persons and property, but not to the defendant or this property. The connection between the defendant and wrongdoing of any sort was not established by informants or by observations during investigation, but rather by facially innocent connections between the defendant and others for whom probable cause abounded. There is such a disparity between probable cause linking defendant to illegal activity that the Court cannot find that official belief in its existence to be reasonable. Accordingly, the Court finds that the good faith exception does not apply.<\/p>\n
Since the existence of any connection between the defendant and the properties at 1806 and 1810 Roxella Street were only found during the illegal search, the subsequent consents and searches and items found thereby are the “fruit of the poisonous tree” and should likewise be suppressed.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Defendant who was a bailee of boxes did not have standing to challenge a search of the boxes. United States v. Morales, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112613 (D. Kan. December 3, 2009).*<\/p>\n
Defendant who was told that there was an arrest warrant for him who had a complete defense had standing to challenge the warrant. Ord v. District of Columbia<\/a>, 587 F.3d 1136 (D.C. Cir. 2009).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading