{"id":6493,"date":"2012-01-01T07:59:16","date_gmt":"2012-01-03T00:15:35","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2012-01-01T07:59:16","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=6493","title":{"rendered":"TN: Redacting illegal search from affidavit under <em>Murray<\/em> still left probable cause"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>A mixed affidavit that includes untainted information and information from a tainted search that occurred prior to the search warrant issuing is subject to redaction. If probable cause remains, the search warrant is still valid. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.tsc.state.tn.us\/sites\/default\/files\/smithrkandfloodnropn.pdf\">State v. Smith<\/a>, 2011 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 952 (December 27, 2011):<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>Regardless, just like federal courts in the wake of the <a href=\"http:\/\/scholar.google.com\/scholar_case?case=9375691845261651263&amp;q=487%2Bu.s.%2B533&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=1002\">Murray [v. United States<\/a>, 487 U.S. 533 (1988)] decision, following [<a href=\"http:\/\/scholar.google.com\/scholar_case?case=12400278331332872527&amp;q=844+S.W.2d+597&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=2,10\">State v.] Clark[<\/a>, 844 S.W.2d 597 (Tenn. 1992)] it has remained the practice of this court to analyze the reliance issue that was so crucial to the Supreme Court in Murray by permitting trial courts to redact those search warrant affidavits partially tainted by illegal material of any and all references to the same and then to re-scrutinize the redacted affidavit in order to determine whether or not probable cause remains nonetheless. See, e.g., <a href=\"http:\/\/scholar.google.com\/scholar_case?case=17451069953709658059&amp;q=980+S.W.2d+390&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=2,10\">State v. Vanderford<\/a>, 980 S.W.2d 390, 399-400 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997); <a href=\"http:\/\/scholar.google.com\/scholar_case?case=18062446790691003017&amp;q=867+S.W.2d+338&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=2,10\">State v. Bowling<\/a>, 867 S.W.2d 338, 342-43 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1993). Indeed, in State v. Stephen J. Udzinski and Donna Stokes a\/k\/a Donna Story, No. 01C01-9610-CC-00431, 1998 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 161, 1998 WL 44922 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Nashville, Feb. 5, 1998), we were confronted with an argument virtually identical to the one made in this case \u2014 that Murray and Clark \u201crequire exclusion of the evidence as a blanket remedy where an affidavit in support of a search warrant application improperly informs the magistrate of the results of an illegal search\u201d because the effect \u201cthe tainted information [could] have on the magistrate&#8217;s ability to perform his functions\u201d is \u201cimmeasurable.\u201d 1998 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 161, [WL] at *23. We roundly rejected that argument and also rejected the notion that Murray required a subjective inquiry into what information the magistrate may have relied upon in issuing his or her decision. Instead, we opted to follow the well-accepted practice of redacting any affidavit containing both legally and illegally gathered evidence, excising all tainted material, and scrutinizing whatever remains to confirm the continued presence of probable cause. 1998 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 161, [WL] at *30.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>b2evALnk.b2WPAutP <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=6493\">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-6493","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6493","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=6493"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6493\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=6493"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=6493"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=6493"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}