Category Archives: Warrant execution

E.D.Mich.: Failure to leave a copy of the SW does not require suppression

Failure to leave a copy of the search warrant does not require suppression. There is no prejudice. United States v. Robinson, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99902 (E.D. Mich. June 14, 2019). The CI was creditable because of admissions against interest … Continue reading

Posted in Informant hearsay, Protective sweep, Warrant execution | Comments Off on E.D.Mich.: Failure to leave a copy of the SW does not require suppression

N.D.Ala.: Def counsel not ineffective for not raising flash bang device as justifying suppression of the search that followed

Defense counsel wasn’t ineffective for not filing a motion to suppress that use of a flash bang device was excessive force and justified suppression because it wouldn’t be under Herring. Also, defense counsel’s failure to challenge defendant’s arrest wasn’t ineffective … Continue reading

Posted in Excessive force, Warrant execution | Comments Off on N.D.Ala.: Def counsel not ineffective for not raising flash bang device as justifying suppression of the search that followed

N.D.Okla.: While an attachment was missing from the official SW it was at the scene of the search, so no prejudice

The government conceded that Attachment C to the mail search warrant was missing from it, and thus that it led to a potentially overbroad search. The search team, however, all had copies of Attachment C, and it was at the … Continue reading

Posted in Good faith exception, Warrant execution | Comments Off on N.D.Okla.: While an attachment was missing from the official SW it was at the scene of the search, so no prejudice

D.S.D.: Protective sweep can occur after an arrest at the threshold

A protective sweep can occur after an arrest at the threshold even though defendant’s girlfriend said nobody else was there. United States v. Villanueva, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89450 (D. S.D. May 29, 2019). The defendant being armed when the … Continue reading

Posted in Protective sweep, Warrant execution | Comments Off on D.S.D.: Protective sweep can occur after an arrest at the threshold

C.D.Ill.: Providing the inventory of the SW execution wasn’t designed to elicit an incriminating response

Providing defendant with the inventory of what was taken in the search, a normal practice usually required by law, was not designed to elicit an incriminating response. Therefore, the statement was voluntary and not subject to Miranda. United States v. … Continue reading

Posted in Reasonableness, Warrant execution | Comments Off on C.D.Ill.: Providing the inventory of the SW execution wasn’t designed to elicit an incriminating response

CA11: 33 day delay in getting SW for computer seized in CP investigation not 4A unreasonable

The government’s 33 day delay in getting a search warrant for defendant’s seized computer in a child porn case was found, although not ideal, not unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Thomas v. United States, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 14645 (11th … Continue reading

Posted in Warrant execution | Comments Off on CA11: 33 day delay in getting SW for computer seized in CP investigation not 4A unreasonable

W.D.Mo.: Primary object of SW found right inside front door, but that didn’t preclude larger search

The search warrant was for a package found right inside the front door. That did not preclude the officers from searching further in the house. Also, a protective sweep incident to execution of the search warrant was proper. Searching inside … Continue reading

Posted in Protective sweep, Warrant execution | Comments Off on W.D.Mo.: Primary object of SW found right inside front door, but that didn’t preclude larger search

TX: Dallas Morning News article that target of SW was “under investigation” was substantially true for libel purposes

The News published a story that Rxpress was under investigation for health care fraud because a search warrant was issued for its records. Actually, Halsey was under investigation, and the search warrant sought the company’s communications with him. The article … Continue reading

Posted in Warrant execution | Comments Off on TX: Dallas Morning News article that target of SW was “under investigation” was substantially true for libel purposes

M.D.Pa.: Typo in SW address overlooked under GFE

Typographical error in the search warrant (648 South 21st Street rather than 748 South 21st Street) would be overlooked under the good faith exception where the correct property was searched. United States v. Carey, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74140 (M.D. … Continue reading

Posted in Particularity, Reasonable suspicion, Warrant execution | Comments Off on M.D.Pa.: Typo in SW address overlooked under GFE

NY4: Def’s statements during execution of SW where he wasn’t arrested weren’t custodial

“We reject defendant’s contention that County Court erred in refusing to suppress statements that he made to the police during the execution of a search warrant at his residence and thereafter at the police station. Defendant contends that he was … Continue reading

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Warrant execution | Comments Off on NY4: Def’s statements during execution of SW where he wasn’t arrested weren’t custodial

C.D.Ill.: Def counsel had no duty to raise lack of an AW because it’s a frivolous argument

Defense counsel had no duty to raise lack of an arrest warrant for defendant’s arrest because it was frivolous and wouldn’t affect the outcome of the case at all. Brown v. United States, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69027 (C.D. Ill. … Continue reading

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Consent, Warrant execution | Comments Off on C.D.Ill.: Def counsel had no duty to raise lack of an AW because it’s a frivolous argument

CA9: SW was ambiguous as to the mobile home to be searched; no PC shown as to one searched; suppressed

The search warrant authorized search of a gray mobile home. There were two on the property, and the one searched was white. The search warrant was thus ambiguous when the officers arrived, and the court finds the search unjustified because … Continue reading

Posted in Good faith exception, Warrant execution | Comments Off on CA9: SW was ambiguous as to the mobile home to be searched; no PC shown as to one searched; suppressed

N.D.Ill.: Speedy trial does not start with the execution of a search warrant

Speedy trial does not start with the execution of a search warrant, even though the execution of the warrant was embarrassing to him. United States v. Mitrovich, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68460 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 23, 2019):

Posted in Warrant execution | Comments Off on N.D.Ill.: Speedy trial does not start with the execution of a search warrant

PBS: Police are now taking roadside blood samples to catch impaired drivers

PBS: Police are now taking roadside blood samples to catch impaired drivers by Jenni Bergal:

Posted in Drug or alcohol testing, Warrant execution, Warrant requirement | Comments Off on PBS: Police are now taking roadside blood samples to catch impaired drivers

D.Mass.: Failure to leave a full copy of the SW at scene does not require suppression

“Jones alleges that he entered a guilty plea unknowingly because [defense counsel] Cloherty incorrectly informed him that, after testifying at the suppression hearing that he lived part-time at the apartment where the officers executed the search, he could not testify … Continue reading

Posted in F.R.Crim.P. 41, Warrant execution | Comments Off on D.Mass.: Failure to leave a full copy of the SW at scene does not require suppression

M.D.Pa.: Officers found the premises had two apartments and they searched the right one

When officers executed the search warrant they discovered there were multiple residences in the building. In defendant’s part of the building, they saw his mail and were confident that they were searching the right place. “Given these facts, the Court … Continue reading

Posted in Particularity, Warrant execution | Comments Off on M.D.Pa.: Officers found the premises had two apartments and they searched the right one

N.D.Miss.: There’s no right to counsel during execution of a SW where defendant isn’t arrested and being questioned

“Mr. Pillault also argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because he had no counsel present when his home was searched. This claim is simply frivolous.” Pillault v. United States, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58295 (N.D. Miss. Apr. 4, … Continue reading

Posted in Informant hearsay, Warrant execution | Comments Off on N.D.Miss.: There’s no right to counsel during execution of a SW where defendant isn’t arrested and being questioned

CA10: 404(b) evidence is subject to 4A exclusion, but harmless error applies

404(b) evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment is subject to suppression. United States v. Hill, 60 F.3d 672, 677 (10th Cir. 1995). Here, however, it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Dalton, 2019 U.S. App. … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Warrant execution | Comments Off on CA10: 404(b) evidence is subject to 4A exclusion, but harmless error applies

WaPo: Cohen SW: Mueller sought Michael Cohen’s emails months before FBI raid, warrants show

WaPo: Cohen SW: Mueller sought Michael Cohen’s emails months before FBI raid, warrants show by Devlin Barrett, Matt Zapotosky and Rosalind S. Helderman:

Posted in Uncategorized, Warrant execution, Warrant requirement | Comments Off on WaPo: Cohen SW: Mueller sought Michael Cohen’s emails months before FBI raid, warrants show

S.D.N.Y.: Use of military weaponry (flash bang) in a residential neighborhood is LEO discretion under FTCA

The choice of law enforcement officers to use flash bang devices in a residential neighborhood at 4 a.m. is discretionary with the police and not unreasonable as a matter of law: “weighing of such risks against the necessity of using … Continue reading

Posted in Reasonableness, Warrant execution | Comments Off on S.D.N.Y.: Use of military weaponry (flash bang) in a residential neighborhood is LEO discretion under FTCA