{"id":5132,"date":"2011-05-28T07:40:11","date_gmt":"2011-01-27T07:59:24","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2011-01-27T07:59:24","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=5132","title":{"rendered":"CA8: Statutory territorial jurisdiction of state judge to issue SW irrelevant under Fourth Amendment"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>The statutory territorial jurisdiction of a state judge to issue a search warrant is irrelevant for Fourth Amendment purposes. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.ca8.uscourts.gov\/opndir\/11\/01\/093845U.pdf\">United States v. Neil<\/a>, 407 Fed. Appx. 993 (8th Cir. 2011):<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>Neil argues that the Dallas County judge lacked statutory authority to issue a search warrant for his residence in Polk County. He contends that under Mo. Rev. Stat. \u00a7 542.266, the issuing judge was required to be a judicial officer in Polk County. Accordingly, he asserts, the warrant was invalid and the evidence discovered through the execution of the warrant must be suppressed and his conviction reversed.<\/p>\n<p>But Neil\u2019s contention \u201cfails to recognize that \u2018in determining whether evidence obtained solely by state officers is admissible in federal court in the first instance, it is usually irrelevant whether a state rule of criminal procedure was violated.\u2019\u201d United States v. Howard, 532 F.3d 755, 760 (8th Cir. 2008) (quoting United States v. Maholy, 1 F.3d 718, 721 (8th Cir. 1993)). The legality of the search and seizure is not determined by reference to a state statute, but by Fourth Amendment analysis. Id. Here, Neil does not argue that the warrant was unsupported by probable cause or not issued by a detached and neutral magistrate judge. And our review of the record indicates that the warrant complies with the Fourth Amendment. Accordingly, Neil\u2019s argument fails.<\/p>\n<p>Alternatively, Neil\u2019s challenge fails even under state law. &#8230; <\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>The seizure of the gun seen from defendant\u2019s waistband was clearly valid and harmless, considering the weight of the case. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.ca3.uscourts.gov\/opinarch\/094351np.pdf\">United States v. Blackman<\/a>, 407 Fed. Appx. 591 (3d Cir. 2011).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>b2evALnk.b2WPAutP <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=5132\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/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-5132","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5132","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=5132"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5132\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=5132"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=5132"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=5132"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}