What goes around, comes around: A police officer under investigation for stealing firearms from detained persons validly consented to a search of his house that produced such a gun. As far as voluntariness is concerned: \u201cThe Court notes that Defendant was well-educated and was a trained law enforcement officer.\u201d United States v. Callahan, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109580 (N.D. Ga. September 26, 2011), R&R 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114569 (N.D. Ga. July 25, 2011).<\/p>\n
While the search warrant and application were not in the parties’ submissions, they are in the court\u2019s files and subject to judicial notice. The warrant here was with probable cause, and it was not unparticular: a street address of the place to be searched is enough. United States v. Gonzales, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109953 (N.D. Ind. September 26, 2011):<\/p>\n
An accurate street address is by itself sufficient to allow a reasonable person to \u201cascertain and identify the place intended.\u201d Here, the warrant included a physical description of the dwelling in addition to an accurate street address. The Defendant has not offered any explanation why this was not sufficient, made a claim that this description does not accurately describe the house to be searched, or suggested that there was a risk that officers executing the warrant would search some other house. <\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading