Arrest warrant justified entry into defendant\u2019s house looking for him. He was unemployed, and, although there were no cars outside, officers heard noises inside that stopped when they knocked. Defendant was suspected of forging IDs and other documents, and it was reasonable to assume that the materiel for doing so would be there. United States v. Thousst, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124601 (M.D. Ala. November 5, 2009)*:<\/p>\n
“The focus in a warrant application is usually on whether the suspect committed a crime and whether evidence of the crime is to be found at his home or business.” United States v. Martin, 297 F.3d 1308, 1314 (11th Cir. 2002), quoting United States v. Procopio, 88 F.3d 21, 28 (1st Cir. 1996). Though not explicitly stated in the warrant, it stands to reason that a person such as Thoussaint, who passes forged instruments and who has no known workplace, may well secret some or all of the equipment used to manufacture the fraudulent instruments at his home. This Court may consider the fact that Thoussaint’s residence, as opposed to a non-existent workplace, would be a likely place for evidence of his crime. Martin acknowledges that courts must sometimes “look beyond the four corners of the affidavit and search warrant” to “consider information known to [an officer] that was not presented in the initial search warrant application or affidavit.” Martin, 297 F.3d at 1318. Again, the Eleventh Circuit directs courts to view the “totality of the circumstances” in determining whether an affidavit presents probable cause for a search. Id. at 1319. The affidavit amply established Thoussaint’s connection to the residence, and, by virtue of his unemployed status, Thoussaint’s residence is implicitly a potential link to his criminal activity. Martin, id.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading