Defendant raised almost every conceivable Fourth Amendment and Rule 41 issue he could, and the district court rejects them all: (1) \u201cThe information in the affidavit is insufficient to support a finding of probable cause as to the crimes listed in the warrant,\u201d but it does. (2) \u201cProbable cause cannot be based on wholly conclusory statements,\u201d but they\u2019re not. (3) \u201cProbable cause cannot be based on an informant without corroboration,\u201d but enough detail was to make it reliable enough. (4) \u201cThe affidavit and addendum to the search warrant contain false statements and omissions,\u201d particularly omission of the CI\u2019s criminal history, but that\u2019s not determinative of much at all because most of them are assumed to be so. (5) \u201cThere is an insufficient nexus between the place searched and the evidence sought,\u201d but there\u2019s not. (6) The search warrant is overly broad,\u201d but it is particular enough. (7) \u201cDefendant was not provided a copy of the warrant at the time of the search,\u201d but that\u2019s a Rule 41 provision that requires a showing of prejudice, and none is shown or even suggested. (8) \u201cDefendant also argues that the warrant is invalid, in part, because it relies on stale information,\u201d but it\u2019s not stale. United States v. Draper, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 205813 (S.D. Ohio Nov. 27, 2019).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Defendant raised almost every conceivable Fourth Amendment and Rule 41 issue he could, and the district court rejects them all: (1) \u201cThe information in the affidavit is insufficient to support a finding of probable cause as to the crimes listed … Continue reading