{"id":48208,"date":"2021-04-25T07:34:26","date_gmt":"2021-04-25T12:34:26","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=48208"},"modified":"2021-04-26T12:18:24","modified_gmt":"2021-04-26T17:18:24","slug":"s-d-w-va-uncorroborated-ci-criminal-history-and-inconclusive-trash-pull-didnt-support-sw-for-house-no-gfe","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=48208","title":{"rendered":"S.D.W.Va.: Uncorroborated CI, criminal history, and inconclusive trash pull didn’t support SW for house; no GFE"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

\u201cPending before the court is Defendant’s motion to suppress 48 pounds of methamphetamine, $41,000 in cash, and all other evidence seized during a search of his residence by the Metropolitan Drug Enforcement Network Team (\u2018MDENT\u2019). I find that neither the warrant application nor the warrant itself contain statements of apparent facts from which a reasonable judicial officer or a reasonable police officer could find probable cause. For the reasons discussed below, Defendant’s Motion is GRANTED.\u201d United States v. Nelson<\/a>, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77079 (S.D. W.Va. Apr. 22, 2021). Even the trash pull was insubstantial evidence of drug dealing:<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

The principal question here is whether the warrant application states apparent facts sufficient to support the magistrate’s conclusion that probable cause existed. Gates, 462 U.S. at 238-39. The warrant application presents only three facts: (1) the unsourced and undescribed information “received” by Detective Garbin; (2) Defendant’s criminal history; and (3) the evidence discovered in the trash pull investigation. However, the first two of these three facts are so unsubstantiated or remote that I am left with only one fact to support a sweeping search of an entire home.<\/p>

<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

It was so insubstantial that even the good faith exception didn’t apply:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Also, like in Lyles<\/em>, this warrant was unreasonably broad\u2014bordering on a general warrant\u2014to investigate possession of marijuana. It authorized the search of electronic devices and financial records that have no connection to the offense of marijuana possession.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

The Fourth Circuit’s conclusion in Lyles<\/em> applies as well here as it did there.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Leon<\/em>‘s standard is ultimately an “objective” one. And objectively speaking, what transpired here <\/a>is not acceptable. What we have before us is a flimsy trash pull that produced scant evidence of a marginal offense but that nonetheless served to justify the indiscriminate rummaging through a household. Law enforcement can do better.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Lyles<\/em>, 910 F.3d at 797<\/a> (internal citation omitted). Defendant’s Motion to Suppress is GRANTED<\/strong>. The court DIRECTS<\/strong> the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to the defendant and counsel, the United States Attorney, the United States Probation Office, and the United States Marshal. The court further DIRECTS<\/strong> the Clerk to post a copy of this published opinion on the court’s website, www.wvsd.uscourts.gov.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

\u201cPending before the court is Defendant’s motion to suppress 48 pounds of methamphetamine, $41,000 in cash, and all other evidence seized during a search of his residence by the Metropolitan Drug Enforcement Network Team (\u2018MDENT\u2019). I find that neither the … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[11,44,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-48208","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-good-faith-exception","category-informant-hearsay","category-probable-cause"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/48208","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=48208"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/48208\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":48234,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/48208\/revisions\/48234"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=48208"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=48208"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=48208"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}