It appeared that the officer did his due diligence in getting a search warrant for defendant\u2019s property based on an IP address obtaining child pornography. The address the IP address came back to was the second floor of a specific address. At the time the warrant was issued, it wasn\u2019t known that the building was really two residences (although it is suggested by the inclusion of \u201cFloor 2\u201d). On the record before the court, it could not be determined whether the due diligence was sufficient, but the inevitable discovery doctrine was good enough to save the warrant. Also, the officers only searched the place they wanted when they found two residences. United States v. Mejia, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135852 (N.D. Ill. September 24, 2012)*:<\/p>\n
Not only did probable cause exist for a search of the Canas\/Mejia residence, but the magistrate judge had already concluded as much and issued a warrant based on essentially the same information. The new information discovered during the search did nothing to destroy that probable cause\u2014it only made clear that the second floor was the appropriate target of the search. Thus, there is no question that a warrant for that apartment would have been issued had the officers requested an amended warrant. Had the warrant been limited to the second floor, the same area would have been searched and the same evidence seized, and Mejia “would have been no better off.” Sims, 553 F.3d at 584. Therefore the government has met its burden to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the information Mejia seeks to suppress inevitably would have been discovered by lawful means. <\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading