{"id":4917,"date":"2011-01-09T22:18:07","date_gmt":"2010-11-22T00:01:00","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2010-11-21T12:30:08","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=4917","title":{"rendered":"CA8: GFE saved a state search warrant of flash drive for gambling information that produced child pornography"},"content":{"rendered":"

Iowa police received information that defendant, a casino employee, was running a high stakes poker game at his residence and that he was using his personal computer in the operation. They got a search warrant for his computer and flash drive and opened the flash drive, coming upon child pornography. They closed the flash drive and applied for a new search warrant for child pornography. The court does not even have to decide probable cause because the good faith exception to the warrant requirement saves the search in any event. Under Herring<\/a>, application of the exclusionary rule is fact specific, and these facts all favor not excluding. United States v. Koch<\/a>, 625 F.3d 470 (8th Cir. 2010):<\/p>\n

Here, the basis for the district court’s decision not to suppress the challenged evidence was that the probable cause underlying the original search warrant was still effective at the time the agents viewed the flash drive and thus the warrant was not stale. We need not address that issue, however, because we conclude that the agents had an objective, good faith belief under United States v. Leon<\/a> that their search was legal. See United States v. Proell<\/a>, 485 F.3d 427, 430 (8th Cir. 2007) (\u201capplicability of the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule\u201d may be considered before assessing probable cause).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

[Note: Applying the good faith exception here is a pointless exercise because there was a warrant to open the flash drive, and it would have survived even the most skeptical analysis. Applying the good faith exception, however, is particularly useful if one is of a mind to expand Herring<\/a>, which most federal appellate courts are more than willing to do.]<\/p>\n

Officers surveilled a drug operation, and they saw defendant put the suspected drugs into his trunk. This was probable cause for his stop and search under the automobile exception. United States v. Aguilera<\/a>, 625 F.3d 482 (8th Cir. 2010).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4917","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4917","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\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=4917"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4917\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=4917"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=4917"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=4917"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}