The search warrant affidavit referred to the offense under investigation as first degree murder, but it was merely assault. This did not, as defendant argues, make it invalid per se. \u201cThe courts also \u2018allow some latitude for honest mistakes\u2019 made in connection with warrants. United States v. Owens, 848 F.2d 462, 464 (4th Cir. 1988). Because there was probable cause, the warrant’s reference to \u2018first degree murder\u2019 was harmless error. Accordingly, Hill\u2019s motion to suppress the gun was denied.\u201d United States v. Hill, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49815 (D. Md. May 20, 2010).*<\/p>\n
The electric company\u2019s revenue loss investigator received a tip of electricity theft from the police and went to investigate. That did not make him an agent of the state. In consent cases, there is a two step process for analyzing consent. United States v. Viamontes, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49616 (M.D. Fla. May 6, 2010)*:<\/p>\n
\u201cFor consent given after an illegal seizure to be valid, the Government must prove two things: that the consent is voluntary, and that the consent was not the product of the illegal seizure.\u201d Santa<\/a>, 236 F.3d at 676. Under this standard, the voluntariness of consent is only a threshold requirement; voluntariness does not, in itself, remove the taint of an illegal seizure. Id. The second inquiry focuses on causation: \u201c[w]hether, granting establishment of the primary illegality,<\/em> the evidence to which instant objection is made has been come at by exploitation of that illegality or instead by means sufficiently distinguishable to be purged of the primary taint.\u201d Id. (quoting Wong Sun v. United States<\/a>, 371 U.S. 471, 488, 83 S. Ct. 407, 9 L. Ed. 2d 441 (1963)) (emphasis added).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading