WA: Affidavit and SW didn’t need to specify statutes of crimes under investigation when it was apparent it was murder

The search warrant of defendant’s place for trace evidence of a dead body rather than the body itself was reasonable because the police had information that the body had been burned in a fire pit. In addition, the affidavit and warrant did not specify the statutes under investigation, but the crime of murder was apparent. “Because a warrant for the search of real property authorizes a search of parts of the property and the fire pit was part of the property, the fire pit was included in the place to be searched and did not need to be separately designated. The warrant described the place to be searched with adequate particularity.” State v. Hatt, 2019 Wash. App. LEXIS 2893 (Nov. 18, 2019).

Hot pursuit justified entry into defendant’s property. He was a suspect in a bank robbery, and he was followed from the robbery scene by police car and a police helicopter to his home. Within two minutes, somebody was running from the home out the back door. They did not, however, enter the home until a search warrant was obtained. United States v. Wright, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 199492 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 29, 2019).*

This entry was posted in Curtilage, Hot pursuit, Particularity, Warrant requirement. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.